4.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Immunologic and clinical responses after vaccinations with peptide-pulsed dendritic cells in metastatic renal cancer patients

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 66, 期 11, 页码 5910-5918

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-3905

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A phase I trial was conducted to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a dendritic cell-based vaccination in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Autologous mature dendritic cells derived from peripheral blood monocytes were pulsed with the BLA-A2-binding MUC1 peptides (ML1.1 and M1.2). For the activation of CD4(+) T-helper lymphocytes, dendritic cells were further incubated with the. PAN-DR-binding peptide PADRE. Dendritic cell vaccinations were done s.c. every 2 weeks for four times and repeated monthly until tumor progression. After five dendritic cell injections, patients additionally received three injections weekly of low-dose interleukin-2 (1 million IE/m(2)). The induction of vaccine-induced T-cell responses was monitored using enzyme-linked immunospot and Cr release assays. Twenty patients were included. The treatment was well tolerated with no severe side effects. In six patients, regression. of the metastatic sites was induced after vaccinations with three patients achieving an objective response (one complete response, two partial responses, two mixed responses, and one stable disease). Additional four patients were stable during the treatment for up to 14 months. MUC1 peptide-specific T-cell responses in vivo were detected in the peripheral blood mononuclear cells of the six patients with objective responses. Interestingly, in patients responding to the treatment, T-cell responses to antigens not used for vaccinations, such as adipophilin, telomerase, or oncofetal antigen, could be detected, indicating that epitope spreading might occur. This study shows that MUC1 peptide-pulsed dendritic cells can induce clinical and immunologic responses in patients with metastatic RCC.

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

4.8
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