4.7 Article

A phase I/IIa study of the mRNA-based cancer immunotherapy CV9201 in patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer

期刊

CANCER IMMUNOLOGY IMMUNOTHERAPY
卷 68, 期 5, 页码 799-812

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00262-019-02315-x

关键词

Active cancer immunotherapy; mRNA; Non-small cell lung cancer; Immunomonitoring; Clinical trial; CV9201

资金

  1. CureVac AG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CV9201 is an RNActive(A (R))-based cancer immunotherapy encoding five non-small cell lung cancer-antigens: New York esophageal squamous cell carcinoma-1, melanoma antigen family C1/C2, survivin, and trophoblast glycoprotein. In a phase I/IIa dose-escalation trial, 46 patients with locally advanced (n = 7) or metastatic (n = 39) NSCLC and at least stable disease after first-line treatment received five intradermal CV9201 injections (400-1600 A mu g of mRNA). The primary objective of the trial was to assess safety. Secondary objectives included assessment of antibody and ex vivo T cell responses against the five antigens, and changes in immune cell populations. All CV9201 dose levels were well-tolerated and the recommended dose for phase IIa was 1600 A mu g. Most AEs were mild-to-moderate injection site reactions and flu-like symptoms. Three (7%) patients had grade 3 related AEs. No related grade 4/5 or related serious AEs occurred. In phase IIa, antigen-specific immune responses against ae 1 antigen were detected in 63% of evaluable patients after treatment. The frequency of activated IgD(+)CD38(hi) B cells increased > twofold in 18/30 (60%) evaluable patients. 9/29 (31%) evaluable patients in phase IIa had stable disease and 20/29 (69%) had progressive disease. Median progression-free and overall survival were 5.0 months (95% CI 1.8-6.3) and 10.8 months (8.1-16.7) from first administration, respectively. Two- and 3-year survival rates were 26.7% and 20.7%, respectively. CV9201 was well-tolerated and immune responses could be detected after treatment supporting further clinical investigation.

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