4.7 Article

Induction of IgG antibodies to MUC1 and survival in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 123, Issue 8, Pages 1848-1853

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.23725

Keywords

epithelial ovarian cancer; clinical trial; HMFG1; anti-MUC1 IgG antibodies; survival

Categories

Funding

  1. Antisoma Ltd, London, United Kingdom

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigated whether epithelial ovarian cancer patients participating in a randomized phase III trial comparing single intraperitoneal (IP) administration of yttrium-90-labeled murine HMFG1 (Y-90-muHMFG1) plus standard treatment (AT) vs. standard treatment (ST) alone developed IgG ab to MUC1 that had an impact on disease outcome. Serial serum samples from 208 patients in the AT and 199 patients in the ST arm were tested for IgG ab to MUC1 (anti-MUC1 IgG). Anti-MUC1 IgG at weeks 4, 8 and 12 ranked higher in the AT than in the ST arm (p < 0.001). The median (range) area under the curve (AUC) of anti-MUC1 IgG for weeks 1 to 12 was 5.53 (1.51-39.51) and 3.92 (1.17-68.74) for the AT and ST arm, respectively (p < 0.001). An anti-MUC1 IgG AUC > 13 was associated with a benefit in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in the AT arm in univariate (P = 0.043 and 0.036, respectively), but not in multivariate analysis (Cox proportional hazards regression model). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a benefit in OS and DFS in patients with an anti-MUC1 IgG AUC > 13 in the AT arm (p = 0.043 and 0.036, respectively), but not in the ST arm. A single IP injection with muHMFG1 did not lead to a survival benefit in the randomized trial, but it induced ab to MUC1 that were associated with an improved disease outcome in patients with highest levels of anti-MUC1 IgG. Immunotherapy against MUC1 could be effective in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer. (C) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available