Maxwel A. Abegg- Graduate Program in Science, Technology and Health (PPGCTS), Institute of Exact Sciences and Technology (ICET), Federal University of Amazonas (UFAM), Itacoatiara, Brazil
By Kobayashi D, Kosumi T, Lam QLK, Fujita S, Hijikata Y, Takeda K, Narita T, Yamashita N, Richard G, De Groot AS and Yamashita N (2025). Front. Immunol. 16:1609116. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1609116
Introduction and positioning
Kobayashi and colleagues present a careful and timely advance linking diagnostic leukapheresis (DLA) to non-amplified exomes from circulating tumor cells (CTCs), enabling individualized neoantigen inference in advanced cancer (1). Their use of cell-surface vimentin (CSV) to mitigate epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) blind spots associated with epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) within standard apheresis workflows is notably pragmatic (2, 3). With reported outputs on the order of 10^4–10^5 CTCs per ~5-L session in some advanced cases, DLA provides a credible substrate for downstream translational hypotheses—while acknowledging substantial inter-patient variability (1, 4, 5). Building on this foundation, we outline a conservative therapeutic hypothesis that prioritizes safety, quality control, and near-term feasibility.
Novelty and impact
Unlike legacy autologous vaccines derived from surgical tumors (irradiated whole cells or oxidized lysates), this concept leverages freshly captured CTCs to manufacture a patient-specific vaccine under controlled conditions. Two coordinated steps are proposed: (i) a whole-cell CTC product rendered immunogenically dead (immunogenic cell death, ICD) and later reinfused alongside non-intravenous (IV) adjuvants; and (ii) a genomically informed booster—preferably messenger RNA (mRNA)—administered around three to six weeks later (estimated timing), after neoantigen prioritization from the same DLA-purified CTCs. This two-step vaccine concept remains hypothetical and will require staged preclinical work and early clinical feasibility testing. To our knowledge, a CTC-derived ICD vaccine for advanced solid tumors paired with a DLA-enabled neoantigen booster has not been described. The approach may be combined with programmed death-1 (PD-1) blockade, since vaccines alone often underperform in advanced disease; KEYNOTE-942 (mRNA-4157/V940 plus pembrolizumab) supports the principle that vaccine+checkpoint can outperform checkpoint alone for recurrence-related endpoints (6). Clinical experience with extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) shows that collection–manipulation–reinfusion workflows are well-established (7, 8), and rare-cell microfluidics can help standardize inputs—though access to such high-throughput platforms (e.g., Mishra et al.) is likely more limited than DLA capture as used by Kobayashi et al. (1, 9).
Whole-cell versus lysate
We favor whole-cell ICD products to preserve intact surface architectures and endogenous damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) [(ecto-calreticulin, high-mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), adenosine triphosphate (ATP)] that together promote dendritic cell (DC) uptake and cross-presentation (10, 11), and to exploit in situ DC-programming principles (12). Nevertheless, CTC lysates remain a valid alternative—eliminating any theoretical residual-viability risk—and should be explored in parallel.
Proposed operational sketch
DLA is performed per institutional standards to obtain a CTC-enriched product (1, 4, 5, 7, 8). Immunomagnetic CD45 depletion plus positive selection using CSV with or without epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM), and optionally human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)/epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), can broaden representation across epithelial–mesenchymal states (2, 3). The purified CTC fraction is transferred to a good manufacturing practice (GMP)–appropriate laboratory. First, singulation/anti-aggregation (hydrodynamic or acoustofluidic) disperses clusters and standardizes dose exposure (9). Second, ICD is induced under calibrated conditions—e.g., photodynamic therapy (PDT) or psoralen/ultraviolet A (UVA)—aiming to abolish clonogenicity while preserving/exposing antigenic architecture and releasing DAMPs (7, 10, 11). Third, comprehensive quality control (QC) is performed: sterility/endotoxin; viability <1%; and zero clonogenicity by adequately powered limiting-dilution/soft-agar assays. Only lots meeting all criteria are formulated and cryopreserved, enabling multiple doses and, importantly, an adequate interval (an estimated few weeks) for full QC turnaround prior to first administration. For adjuvants, we recommend non-IV schedules (e.g., short subcutaneous (s.c.) granulocyte–macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and intradermal (i.d.) CpG oligodeoxynucleotides (CpG) at sentinel sites) to recruit dendritic cells while limiting systemic reactogenicity (12–14).
Neoantigen booster design
In parallel, the same purified CTC fraction (or its archived DNA/RNA) undergoes whole-exome sequencing and neoantigen prediction; when available, tumor-tissue sequencing can be integrated to mitigate antigenic divergence and broaden coverage. An individualized booster—preferably messenger RNA (mRNA) for breadth/polyclonality (often dozens of epitopes per product)—is administered an estimated three to six weeks after the initial vaccine, with PD-1 blockade per clinical context (1–3, 6).
Target population and practical yields
This hypothesis is targeted at advanced solid tumors, where DLA yields are more often sufficient and clinical need is high. Feasibility will vary by histology and burden. While 10^4–10^5 CTCs per session are reported in some advanced cases (1, 5), many patients will yield fewer cells; practical contingencies include pooling across sessions, optimizing enrichment/recovery, or pivoting to a lysate rather than a whole-cell product when cell counts are modest. Quantitative dose-finding will be necessary to relate administered cell numbers to immune readouts, noting that historical whole-cell vaccines used per-dose cell counts higher than what many CTC collections may provide.
Translational gates
Sterility/endotoxin: required per lot; closed, validated workflows.
Non-tumorigenicity: zero clonogenicity is non-negotiable; limiting-dilution/soft-agar assays powered to detect rare survivors.
ICD confirmation: batch-level markers (ecto-calreticulin, high-mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), adenosine triphosphate (ATP)) and optional DC-uptake/cross-presentation assays; preservation of key surface epitopes by flow cytometry (10–12).
Target fidelity: multi-marker capture (CSV ± EpCAM ± HER2/EGFR) to mitigate EMT escape and broaden antigenic representation; integrate tissue data when feasible (2, 3).
Hemocompatibility: device/contacting materials tested per International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 10993–4 panels (15).
Adjuvants: prefer s.c./i.d. regimens; consider biomaterial scaffolds for local recruitment where appropriate (12–14).
Analytics: serial CTC kinetics and immune monitoring (enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISpot)/intracellular cytokine staining (ICS)); optional alignment with CTC-guided paradigms (e.g., Study of Circulating Tumor Cells (STIC-CTC)) (16).
Feasibility anchors and risk profile
A laboratory-based approach reduces engineering risk versus in-line modules and allows lotting/cryopreservation for repeat dosing. Residual risks include (i) inadvertent reinfusion of viable tumor cells—addressed only by demonstrable zero clonogenicity across phenotypic diversity; (ii) antigenic divergence because CTCs may not capture all intratumoral clones—mitigated by integrating tissue data and using broad mRNA boosters (2, 3, 6); and (iii) variable efficacy in heavily pretreated, immunosuppressed states—mitigated by PD-1 combination and rational patient selection (3, 6). Access to high-throughput microfluidics remains more limited than DLA itself and may constrain early adoption (9). Costs are non-trivial, but reuse of apheresis infrastructure, standardized disposables, and batched QC can render early trials tractable (5, 7, 8, 17, 18).
Suggested next steps
Preclinical proof-of-concept: syngeneic/xenograft models to test the full flow—CTC surrogates → ICD induction → reinfusion + GM-CSF/CpG → mRNA booster ± PD-1—measuring CD8+ breadth, tumor control, and memory (10–14).
Process engineering: SOPs for singulation and illumination dose; validated QC panels (viability, clonogenicity, ICD markers) with clear go/no-go criteria.
Clinical exploration: dose-escalation in high-CTC cohorts (e.g., hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer), PD-1 from day one, and serial CTC/immune readouts aligned to clinical context (6, 16).
Conclusion
Kobayashi et al. establish a robust route to obtain CTCs suitable for neoantigen discovery at scale in advanced disease (1). Motivated by that advance, we hypothesize a two-step vaccination path: a CTC-derived whole-cell ICD product manufactured under rigorous QC, followed by a personalized neoantigen booster administered after an estimated three to six weeks. Practical limits include substantial inter-patient variability in CTC yield, which may necessitate pooling collections or pivoting to lysate-based formulations in some cases, and the challenge of scaling standardized capture/QC workflows across centers. These constraints argue for initial evaluation in high-yield histologies and the development of shared, multi-center SOPs before broader deployment. If successful, this strategy could provide clinically meaningful benefit in selected advanced-stage settings and may be combined with PD-1 blockade or other systemic therapies. The concept remains a hypothesis and will require disciplined preclinical work and staged early clinical feasibility testing to establish safety, operability, and signals of efficacy.
Author contributions
MA: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Generative AI tools were used to assist with language polishing, literature triage, citation formatting, and drafting of alternative methodological options. All AI-generated suggestions and text were critically reviewed, verified against the cited sources, edited, and approved by the author. No figures or results were produced solely by AI. Responsibility for the content rests entirely with the author.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Kobayashi D, Kosumi T, Lam QLK, Fujita S, Hijikata Y, Takeda K, et al. A method for identifying neoantigens through isolation of circulating tumor cells using apheresis among patients with advanced-stage cancer. Front Immunol. (2025) 16:1609116. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1609116
2. Li H, Zhu YZ, Xu L, Han T, Luan J, Li X, et al. Exploring new frontiers: cell surface vimentin as an emerging marker for circulating tumor cells and a promising therapeutic target in advanced gastric cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. (2024) 43:129. doi: 10.1186/s13046-024-03043-6
3. Gu X, Wei S, and Lv X. Circulating tumor cells: from new biological insights to clinical applications. Signal Transduction Targeted Ther. (2024) 9:226. doi: 10.1038/s41392-024-01938-6
4. Rieckmann LM, Spohn M, Ruff L, Agorku D, Becker L, Borchers A, et al. Diagnostic leukapheresis reveals distinct phenotypes of NSCLC circulating tumor cells. Mol Cancer. (2024) 23:93. doi: 10.1186/s12943-024-01984-2
5. Fehm TN, Meier-Stiegen F, Driemel C, Jäger B, Reinhardt F, Naskou J, et al. Diagnostic leukapheresis for CTC analysis in breast cancer patients: CTC frequency, clinical experiences and recommendations for standardized reporting. Cytometry Part A. (2018) 93:1213–9. doi: 10.1002/cyto.a.23669
6. Weber JS, Carlino MS, Khattak A, Meniawy T, Ansstas G, Taylor MH, et al. Individualised neoantigen therapy mRNA-4157 (V940) plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in resected melanoma (KEYNOTE-942): a randomised, phase 2b study. Lancet. (2024) 403:632–44. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02268-7
7. De Fusco G and Gessoni G. Extracorporeal photopheresis in graft-versus-host disease: real-life experience using a new in-line method. Hemato. (2025) 6:2. doi: 10.3390/hemato6010002
8. Bredeson C, Rumble RB, Varela NP, Kuruvilla J, Kouroukis CT, and Stem Cell Transplant Steering Committee. Extracorporeal photopheresis in the management of graft-versus-host disease. Curr Oncol. (2014) 21:e310. doi: 10.3747/co.21.1882
9. Mishra A, Huang S-B, Dubash T, Burr R, Edd JF, Wittner BS, et al. Tumor cell-based liquid biopsy using high-throughput microfluidic enrichment of entire leukapheresis product. Nat Commun. (2025) 16:32. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-55140-x
10. Alzeibak R, Mishchenko TA, Shilyagina NY, Balalaeva IV, Vedunova MV, and Krysko DV. Targeting immunogenic cancer cell death by photodynamic therapy: past, present and future. J ImmunoTherapy Cancer. (2021) 9:e001926. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2020-001926
11. Mishchenko T, Balalaeva I, Gorokhova A, Vedunova M, and Krysko DV. Which cell death modality wins the contest for photodynamic therapy of cancer? Cell Death Dis. (2022) 13:455. doi: 10.1038/s41419-022-04851-4
12. Ali OA, Emerich D, Dranoff G, and Mooney DJ. In situ regulation of dendritic cells and T cells mediates tumor regression in mice. Sci Trans Med. (2009) 1:8ra19. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3000359
13. Kim J, Li WA, Choi Y, Lewin SA, Verbeke CS, Dranoff G, et al. Injectable, spontaneously assembling, inorganic scaffolds modulate immune cells in vivo and increase vaccine efficacy. Nat Biotechnol. (2015) 33:64–72. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3071
14. Calmeiro J, Carrascal M, Gomes C, Falcão A, Cruz MT, and Neves BM. Biomaterial-based platforms for in situ dendritic cell programming and their use in antitumor immunotherapy. J ImmunoTherapy Cancer. (2019) 7:238. doi: 10.1186/s40425-019-0728-2
15. Stang K, Krajewski S, Neumann B, Kurz J, Post M, Stoppelkamp S, et al. Hemocompatibility testing according to ISO 10993-4: discrimination between pyrogen- and device-induced hemostatic activation. Materials Sci Engineering: C. (2014) 42:422–8. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2014.05.070
16. Bidard F-C, Jacot W, Kiavue N, Dureau S, Kadi A, Brain E, et al. Efficacy of circulating tumor cell count-driven vs clinician-driven first-line therapy choice in hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2-negative metastatic breast cancer: the STIC CTC randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. (2021) 7:34–41. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.5660
17. Worku DA and Hewitt V. The role and economics of immunotherapy in solid tumour management. J Oncol Pharm Pract. (2020) 26:2020–4. doi: 10.1177/1078155220963190
18. Connelly-Smith L, Alquist CR, Aqui NA, Hofmann JC, Klingel R, Onwuemene OA, et al. Guidelines on the use of therapeutic apheresis in clinical practice—evidence-based approach from the Writing Committee of the American Society for Apheresis: the ninth special issue. J Clin Apheresis. (2023) 38:77–278. doi: 10.1002/jca.22043
Keywords: diagnostic leukapheresis, circulating tumor cells, immunogenic cell death, DAMPs, photodynamic therapy, psoralen/UVA, GM-CSF, CpG
Citation: Abegg MA (2025) Commentary: A method for identifying neoantigens through isolation of circulating tumor cells using apheresis in patients with advanced-stage cancer. Front. Immunol. 16:1713331. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1713331
Received: 26 September 2025; Accepted: 12 November 2025; Revised: 11 November 2025;
Published: 24 November 2025.
Edited by:
Gaocai Li, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, ChinaReviewed by:
Zhen Lei, Yale University, United StatesQi Xue, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, United States
Ran Mo, Yale University, United States
Copyright © 2025 Abegg. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Maxwel A. Abegg, bWF4YWJlZ2dAZ21haWwuY29t