4.7 Article

A Mechanistic Proof-of-concept Clinical Trial With JX-594, a Targeted Multi-mechanistic Oncolytic Poxvirus, in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma

期刊

MOLECULAR THERAPY
卷 19, 期 10, 页码 1913-1922

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/mt.2011.132

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bio-Scientific Research Grant
  2. Pusan National University [PNU-2008-101-102]
  3. Terry Fox Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

JX-594 is a targeted and granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF)-expressing oncolytic poxvirus designed to selectively replicate in and destroy cancer cells through viral oncolysis and tumor-specific immunity. In order to study the mechanisms-of-action (MOA) of JX-594 in humans, a mechanistic proof-of-concept clinical trial was performed at a low dose equivalent to <= 10% of the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) in other clinical trials. Ten patients with previously treated stage IV melanoma were enrolled. Tumors were injected weekly for up to nine total treatments. Blood samples and tumor biopsies were analyzed for evidence of transgene activity, virus replication, and immune stimulation. The beta-galactosidase (beta-gal) transgene was expressed in all patients as evidenced by antibody induction. Six patients had significant induction of GM-CSF-responsive white blood cell (WBC) subsets such as neutrophils (25-300% increase). JX-594 replication and subsequent shedding into blood was detectable in five patients after cycles 1-9. Tumor biopsies demonstrated JX-594 replication, perivascular lymphocytic infiltration, and diffuse tumor necrosis. Mild flu-like symptoms were the most common adverse events. In sum, JX-594 replication, oncolysis, and expression of both transgenes were demonstrated; replication was still evident after multiple cycles. These findings have implications for further clinical development of JX-594 and other transgene-armed oncolytic viruses. Received 11 January 2011; accepted 3 June 2011; published online 19 July 2011. doi:10.1038/mt.2011.132

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