Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15449035›Full record

Trial reportCancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII2005

Phase I/II study of immunotherapy with T-cell peptide epitopes in patients with stage IV melanoma.

Peter Hersey, Scott W Menzies, Brendon Coventry, Tam Nguyen, Margaret Farrelly, Susan Collins, Debbie Hirst, Heather Johnson

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

Trial report in Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Metastasis review: from bench to bedside.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2014
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Nanotechnology in vaccine delivery.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2008
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Peter HerseyOncology and Immunology Unit, Room 443, David Maddison Clinical Sciences Building, King & Watt Streets, Newcastle, NSW, 2300, Australia. Peter.Hersey@newcastle.edu.au
Scott W Menzies
Brendon Coventry
Tam Nguyen
Margaret Farrelly
Susan Collins
Debbie Hirst
Heather Johnson
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital · AUUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AUCalvary Mater Newcastle Hospital · AURoyal Adelaide Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies in small groups of patients suggested that immunization of melanoma patients with peptide epitopes recognized by T cells could induce regression of melanoma. This approach was tested in 36 patients with stage IV melanoma. The (MHC class I-restricted) peptides were from gp100, MART-1, tyrosinase, and MAGE-3. The gp100 and MART-1 peptides had been modified to increase their immunogenicity. In half the patients (groups 3 and 4) the peptides were given in the adjuvant Montanide-ISA-720, and half the patients in both groups were given GM-CSF s.c. for 4 days following each injection. Treatment was well tolerated except for two severe erythematous responses to Montanide-ISA-720 and marked inflammatory responses at sites of GM-CSF administration in three patients. There were no objective clinical responses but stabilization of disease for periods from 3 to 12 months were seen in seven patients. Five of these were patients given the peptides in Montanide-ISA-720. Delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) skin test responses were also seen mainly in the patients given the peptides in Montanide-ISA-720. GM-CSF did not increase DTH responses in patients in the latter group but may have increased DTH responses in those not given peptides in Montanide-ISA-720. Inflammatory responses around s.c. metastases or regional lymph nodes were observed in two patients. These results suggest that the peptides are more effective when given in the adjuvant Montanide-ISA-720. Nevertheless, results from this study, together with those from a number of comparable studies, indicate that peptide vaccines are currently of minimal benefit to patients and support the need for ongoing development of new strategies in treatment of this disease.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntigens, NeoplasmCytokinesEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayEpitopesEpitopes, T-LymphocyteFemalegp100 Melanoma AntigenGranulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating FactorHumansHypersensitivity, DelayedImmunity, CellularImmunotherapyInflammationAntigens, NeoplasmCytokinesEpitopesEpitopes, T-Lymphocytegp100 Melanoma AntigenGranulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating FactorInterferon-gammaMAGEA3 protein, humanmannide monooleateMannitolMART-1 AntigenMembrane GlycoproteinsMLANA protein, humanMonophenol MonooxygenaseNeoplasm ProteinsOleic AcidsPeptidesPMEL protein, human

Identifiers

PMID15449035
PMCPMC11034346
OpenAlexW1986019318

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.