4.7 Article

Induction of Robust Type-I CD8+ T-cell Responses in WHO Grade 2 Low-Grade Glioma Patients Receiving Peptide-Based Vaccines in Combination with Poly-ICLC

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 286-294

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-1790

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NIH [1R21CA133859]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: WHO grade 2 low-grade gliomas (LGG) with high risk factors for recurrence are mostly lethal despite current treatments. We conducted a phase I study to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of subcutaneous vaccinations with synthetic peptides for glioma-associated antigen (GAA) epitopes in HLA-A2_ adults with high-risk LGGs in the following three cohorts: (i) patients without prior progression, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy (RT); (ii) patients without prior progression or chemotherapy but with prior RT; and (iii) recurrent patients. Experimental Design: GAAs were IL13Ra2, EphA2, WT1, and Survivin. Synthetic peptides were emulsified in Montanide-ISA51 and given every 3 weeks for eight courses with intramuscular injections of poly-ICLC, followed by q12 week booster vaccines. Results: Cohorts 1, 2, and 3 enrolled 12, 1, and 10 patients, respectively. No regimen-limiting toxicity was encountered except for one case with grade 3 fever, fatigue, and mood disturbance (cohort 1). ELISPOT assays demonstrated robust IFNg responses against at least three of the four GAA epitopes in 10 and 4 cases of cohorts 1 and 3, respectively. Cohort 1 patients demonstrated significantly higher IFNg responses than cohort 3 patients. Median progression-free survival (PFS) periods since the first vaccine are 17 months in cohort 1 (range, 10-47_) and 12 months in cohort 3 (range, 3-41_). The onlypatientwith large astrocytomaincohort2 hasbeenprogression-free formore than67months sincediagnosis. Conclusion: The current regimen is well tolerated and induces robust GAA-specific responses in WHO grade 2 glioma patients. These results warrant further evaluations of this approach. (C) 2014 AACR.

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