4.7 Article

Phase I Clinical Trial of an Adenovirus/Prostate-Specific Antigen Vaccine for Prostate Cancer: Safety and Immunologic Results

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 15, 期 23, 页码 7375-7380

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1910

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Carver College of Medicine and Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Iowa
  2. General Clinical Research Center NCRR [M01 RR00059]
  3. NCI [CA096691]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We performed a phase I clinical trial of adenovirus/prostate-specific antigen (PSA) vaccine in men with measurable metastatic hormone-refractory disease. Experimental Design: Men with measurable metastatic disease received one vaccine injection. Toxicity, immune responses, changes in PSA doubling times, and patient survival were assessed. Thirty-two patients with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer were treated with a single s.c. vaccine injection at one of three dose levels, either as an aqueous solution or suspended in a Gelfoam matrix. All patients returned for physical and clinical chemistry examinations at regular intervals up to 12 months after injections. Results: The vaccine was deemed safe at all doses in both administration forms. There were no serious vaccine-related adverse events; the most prevalent were localized erythema/ecchymoses and cold/flu-like symptoms. Anti-PSA antibodies were produced by 34% of patients and anti-PSA T-cell responses were produced by 68%. PSA doubling time was increased in 48%, whereas 55% survived longer than predicted by the Halabi nomogram. Conclusions: The adenovirus/PSA vaccine was proven safe with no serious vaccine-related adverse events. The majority of vaccinated patients produced anti-PSA T-cell responses and over half survived longer than predicted by nomogram. Although the latter data are only derived from a small number of patients in this phase I trial, they are encouraging enough to pursue further studies. (Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(23):7375-80)

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