4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

An optimized clinical regimen for the oncolytic virus PV701

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 977-985

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1817

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Previous phase 1 trials of i.v.-administered PV701 have shown this virus to be well-tolerated with toxicity primarily associated with the first dose. Our hypothesis, based on preclinical evidence, was that patient tolerability could be improved by slowing the i.v. infusion rate, and that this approach would allow for the safe administration of higher doses. Additionally, this phase 1 trial was the first to measure PV701 clearance. Experimental Design: For the first dose, a 3-h infusion was used compared with the 10- and 30-min infusions administered in the two previous trials. Subsequent doses were infused over 1 h. Six doses were given per 3-week cycle. Escalation of the first dose was done separately from the escalation of doses 2 to 6. Viral clearance was determined using whole blood reverse transcription-PCR. Results: Eighteen patients with advanced chemorefractory cancer were enrolled. The first dose was safely escalated to 24 x 109 plaque-forming units/m(2) and doses 2 to 6 were safely escalated to 120 x 10(9) plaque-forming units/m(2). Tolerability was improved compared with the rapid bolus dosing used previously with the elimination of severe flu-like symptoms. Furthermore, infusion reactions were markedly decreased in this trial compared with previous PV701 trials. The presence of neutralizing antibodies did not significantly affect PV701 clearance. Four major and two minor tumor responses were observed. Conclusions: Using slow infusion, patient tolerability was improved, while the first dose was safely escalated relative to two previous PV701 trials. Based on improved tolerability and encouraging signs of activity, this slow infusion regimen was selected for further PV701 clinical development.

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