Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15127236›Full record

Trial reportCancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII2004

A phase I trial of idiotypic vaccination with HMFG1 in ovarian cancer.

Steve Nicholson, C C Bomphray, H Thomas, A McIndoe, D Barton, M Gore, Andrew J T George

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical TrialClinical Trial, Phase I
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Antigen-specific active immunotherapy for ovarian cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Immunotherapy in ovarian cancer.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2012
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Steve NicholsonImperial Cancer Research Fund Molecular Oncology Unit, Hammersmith Hospital, London, UK. wondersn@doctors.org.uk
C C Bomphray
H Thomas
A McIndoe
D Barton
M Gore
Andrew J T George
Hammersmith Hospital · GBRoyal Marsden Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAn extended phase I trial was conducted in a total of 26 patients with ovarian cancer. The objectives were to assess the safety and tolerability of idiotypic vaccination using the murine monoclonal antibody HMFG1 (anti-MUC1), and to develop robust assays to monitor humoral immune responses generated against either the antibody or MUC1. MATERIAL AND

methodsAll patients had undergone standard debulking surgery (where appropriate) and at least one regimen of platinum-based chemotherapy. Eligibility criteria included: (a) residual disease at the end of chemotherapy, (b) relapsed disease, and (c) pathologically confirmed second complete remission following salvage chemotherapy. Patients received a priming dose of 25 mg of HMFG1 either intravenously or intraperitoneally, followed by up to six intradermal doses of HMFG1 in 10% Alhydrogel at intervals of 1 month. The three dose levels were 0.5 mg, 1 mg and 5 mg. We devised modifications of published protocols for the measurement of anti-idiotypic and anti-MUC1 antibody responses and also extended the use of the IAsys resonant mirror biosensor to measure the kinetics of the idiotypic network response in these patients.

resultsThere were no serious adverse events at any dose level. The trial confirmed that all doses could be administered safely with minimal toxicity. No clinical responses were seen in patients with evaluable disease. ELISA for anti-idiotypic antibodies (Ab2) showed significant levels in patients who completed the protocol. There were no significant differences in the levels of Ab2 generated by the different doses of antibody. These results were confirmed by biosensor assays for Ab2, which also showed affinity maturation of the Ab2 response as patients progressed through the vaccination protocol. Biosensor assays also demonstrated no difference in the affinity of Ab2 generated by different booster doses of HMFG1. ELISA for anti-MUC1 antibodies showed less consistent results, with very small but statistically significant rises in anti-MUC1 signals seen in 38% of patients who completed the vaccination regimen. DISCUSSION: The clinical endpoints of safety and tolerability were met. The assays developed for this project have shown reproducibility and may provide surrogate endpoints to assess vaccination for future trials. The use of similar biosensors may be of particular relevance for monitoring of humoral immune responses in other vaccine trials. The low levels of anti-MUC1 antibodies generated may correspond with the lack of clinical efficacy in the few patients with evaluable disease.

Indexed as

ImmunotherapyVaccinationAntibodies, Anti-IdiotypicAntibodies, MonoclonalCA-125 AntigenCancer VaccinesCohort StudiesEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFemaleHumansMaximum Tolerated DoseMiddle AgedMucin-1Neoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm, ResidualOvarian NeoplasmsAntibodies, Anti-IdiotypicAntibodies, MonoclonalCA-125 AntigenCancer VaccinesMucin-1pemtumomab

Identifiers

PMID15127236
PMCPMC11032936
OpenAlexW2074678452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.