ReviewHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2012
A tale of two pities: autologous melanoma vaccines on the brink.
Review in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Portrait of an autologous cancer vaccine: Then and now.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Article
- Dinitrophenyl hapten with laser immunotherapy for advanced malignant melanoma: A clinical study.Oncology letters · 2017Article
- Dendritic cell vaccines for melanoma: past, present and future.Melanoma management · 2016Review
- HSP70-based anti-cancer immunotherapy.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2016Article
- Is vaccine research still relevant for metastatic melanoma?Melanoma management · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper reviews and compares two autologous vaccine technologies for human melanoma that failed to obtain marketing approval after 10-15 y of clinical development-the HSP vaccine invented by Srivastava and developed by the company, Antigenics, and the hapten-modified cellular vaccine invented by Berd and developed by AVAX Technologies. Both vaccines had a strong basic science background with a well-understood mechanism of action. The HSP vaccine failed in a phase III pivotal trial, while the haptenized cellular vaccine was never adequately tested in a phase III trial because of regulatory and financial problems. It is proposed that the phase I-II clinical trials of the HSP vaccine neglected to define optimal dose, schedule, and route of administration, which, together with safety, are the major reasons for doing such trials. Therefore, the phase III trial was bound to fail because it was based on insufficient immunopharmacological information. Developers of the haptenized cellular vaccine underestimated the manufacturing and regulatory hurdles inherent to that technology and were therefore unable to complete a pivotal trial. Valuable lessons can be learned by acknowledging the mistakes made in these attempts to bring forward new treatments that could have eased the burdens of melanoma patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.