4.7 Article

CSPG4-Specific Immunity and Survival Prolongation in Dogs with Oral Malignant Melanoma Immunized with Human CSPG4 DNA

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 20, 期 14, 页码 3753-3762

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-3042

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Italian Association for Cancer Research [IG 5377]
  2. University of Torino, Fondazione Ricerca Molinette Onlus
  3. National Cancer Institute [RO1CA138188]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Due to the many similarities with its human counterpart, canine malignant melanoma (cMM) is a valuable model in which to assess the efficacy of novel therapeutic strategies. The model is herein used to evaluate the immunogenicity, safety, and therapeutic efficacy of a human chondroitin sulfate proteoglycan-4 (hCSPG4) DNA-based vaccine. The fact that homology between hCSPG4 and cCSPG4 amino-acidic sequences stands at more than 80% provides the rationale for using an hCSPG4 DNA vaccine in the cMM model. Experimental Design: Dogs with stage II-III surgically resected CSPG4-positive oral MM were subjected to monthly intramuscular plasmid administration, which was followed immediately by electroporation (electrovaccination) for at least 6, and up to 20, months. The immunogenicity, safety, and therapeutic efficacy of the vaccine have been evaluated. Results: hCSPG4 electrovaccination caused no clinically relevant local or systemic side effects and resulted in significantly longer overall and disease-free survival times in 14 vaccinated dogs as compared with 13 nonvaccinated controls. All vaccinated dogs developed antibodies against both hCSPG4 and cCSPG4. Seven vaccinated dogs were also tested for a cCSPG4-specific T-cell response and only two gave a detectable interferon (IFN)gamma response. Conclusion: Xenogeneic electrovaccination against CSPG4 is able to overcome host unresponsiveness to the self antigen and seems to be effective in treating cMM, laying the foundation for its translation to a human clinical setting.

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