PURPOSE: We evaluated the feasibility, safety, and immunogenicity of mature, peptide-pulsed dendritic cell (DC) vaccines administered by different routes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a randomized, phase I, dose-escalation study in 27 patients with metastatic melanoma receiving four autologous peptide-pulsed DC vaccinations. Patients were randomly assigned to an intravenous (IV), intranodal (IN), or intradermal (ID) route of administration (ROA). For each route, primary end points were dose-limiting toxicity, maximum-tolerated dose, and T-cell sensitization. Sensitization was evaluated through tetramer staining, in vitro peptide recognition assays, and delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) responses. RESULTS: Twenty-two (81.5%) of 27 patients completed all four vaccinations. Vaccinations were well tolerated; a few patients exhibited grade 1 to 2 toxicities including rash, fever, and injection site reaction. All routes of administration induced comparable increases in tetramer-staining CD8+ T cells (five of seven IV, four of seven IN, and four of six ID patients). However, the IN route induced significantly higher rates for de novo development of CD8+ T cells that respond by cytokine secretion to peptide-pulsed targets (six [85.7%] of seven IN patients v two [33%] of six ID patients v none [0%] of six IV patients; P =.005) and de novo DTH (seven [87.5%] of eight IN patients v two [33.3%] of six ID patients v one [14.3%] of seven IV patients; P =.01) compared with other routes. CONCLUSION: Administration of this peptide-pulsed mature DC vaccine by IN, IV, or ID routes is feasible and safe. IN administration seems to result in superior T-cell sensitization as measured by de novo target-cell recognition and DTH priming, indicating that IN may be the preferred ROA for mature DC vaccines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bedrosian et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: