4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Phase III comparison of vitespen, an autologous tumor-derived heat shock protein gp96 peptide complex vaccine, with physician's choice of treatment for stage IV melanoma: The C-100-21 study group

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 26, 期 6, 页码 955-962

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.11.9941

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA84479] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To assess the antitumor activity of vitespen (autologous, tumor-derived heat shock protein gp96 peptide complexes) by determining whether patients with stage IV melanoma treated with vitespen experienced longer overall survival than patients treated with physician's choice. Patients and Methods Patients (N=322) were randomly assigned 2: 1 to receive vitespen or physician's choice (PC) of a treatment containing one or more of the following: dacarbazine, temozolomide, interleukin-2, or complete tumor resection. This open-label trial was conducted at 71 centers worldwide. Patients were monitored for safety and overall survival. Results Therapy with vitespen is devoid of significant toxicity. Patients randomly assigned to the vitespen arm received variable number of injections (range, 0 to 87; median, 6) in part because of the autologous nature of vitespen therapy. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that overall survival in the vitespen arm is statistically indistinguishable from that in the PC arm. Exploratory landmark analyses show that patients in the M1a and M1b substages receiving a larger number of vitespen immunizations survived longer than those receiving fewer such treatments. Such difference was not detected for substage M1c patients. Conclusion These results are consistent with the immunologic mechanism of action of vitespen, indicating delayed onset of clinical activity after exposure to the vaccine. The results suggest patients with M1a and M1b disease who are able to receive 10 or more doses of vitespen as the candidate population for a confirmatory study.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据