4.7 Article

A phase I trial of vaccination of CA9-derived peptides for HLA-A24-positive patients with cytokine-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 1768-1775

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-2253

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: A phase I peptide vaccination trial was done in patients with progressive cytokine-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) to assess both the toxicity and capability to induce immune responses of three peptides (CA9p219-227, p288-296, and p323-331) derived from CA9, a tumor-associated antigen ubiquitously expressed in RCC. Experimental Design: Twenty-three patients positive for human leukocyte antigen (HLA) -A24 with histologically confirmed RCC were enrolled. Eligibility included progressive disease after standard cytokine therapy with interleukin-2 and/or IFN-alpha. Patients were vaccinated s.c. with the three peptides emulsified in incomplete Freund's adjuvant at 2-week intervals. Pre- and post-vaccination blood samples were obtained for toxicity assessment and immunologic studies. Patients were monitored for clinical responses on a 3-monthly basis. Results: Vaccinations were well tolerated without any major adverse event. Most of the patients developed peptide-specific CTLs and/or immunoglobulin G reactive to the peptides after the 6th or 9th vaccination, followed by a gradual increase in both CTL frequency and levels of peptide-reactive serum IgG. Three patients with multiple lung metastases showed partial responses with disappearance and shrinking of metastatic lesions. Additionally, stable disease for >6 months was observed in six patients (median duration, 12.2 months). Moreover, the median survival time of all patients who were progressive at trial enrollment after failing immunotherapy was 21.0 months (5-35 months). Conclusions: These results suggest that vaccination of these peptides is safe and recommended for further trials for HLA-A24-positive metastatic RCC patients.

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