4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Pilot study of vaccination with recombinant CEA-MUC-1-TRICOM poxviral-based vaccines in patients with metastatic carcinoma

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 14, 期 10, 页码 3060-3069

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0126

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [Z01 BC010425-09] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Poxviral vectors have a proven safety record and can be used to incorporate multiple transgenes. Prior clinical trials with poxviral vaccines have shown that immunologic tolerance to self-antigens can be broken. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and MUC-1 are overexpressed in a substantial proportion of common solid carcinomas. The primary end point of this study was vaccine safety, with immunologic and clinical responses as secondary end points. Experimental Design: We report here a pilot study of 25 patients treated with a poxviral vaccine regimen consisting of the genes for CEA and MUC-11, along with a triad of costimulatory molecules (TRICOM; composed of B7.1, intercellular adhesion molecule 1, and lymphocyte function - associated antigen 3) engineered into vaccinia (PANVAC-V) as a prime vaccination and into fowlpox (PANVAC-F) as a booster vaccination. Results: The vaccine was well tolerated. Apart from injection-site reaction, no grade >= 2 toxicity was seen in more than 2% of the cycles. Immune responses to MUC-1 and/or CEA were seen following vaccination in 9 of 16 patients tested. A patient with clear cell ovarian cancer and symptomatic ascites had a durable (18-month) clinical response radiographically and biochemically, and one breast cancer patient had a confirmed decrease of >20% in the size of large liver metastasis. Conclusions: This vaccine strategy seems to be safe, is associated with both CD8 and CD4 immune responses, and has shown evidence of clinical activity. Further trials with this agent, either alone or in combination with immunopotentiating and other therapeutic agents, are warranted.

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