Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Phase I trial shows lapuleucel-T induces immune responses and stabilizes disease in breast cancer.
PURPOSE: Lapuleucel-T (APC8024), an autologous active cellular immunotherapy, was prepared from peripheral-blood mononuclear cells, including antigen-presenting cells, that were activated in vitro with recombinant fusion protein BA7072. This antigen construct consisted of sequences from intracellular and extracellular domains of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) linked to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor. We conducted a phase I study to evaluate the safety and immunologic activity of lapuleucel-T in patients with HER-2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Metastatic breast cancer patients whose tumors overexpressed or amplified HER-2 were eligible. Patients underwent leukapheresis and subsequent lapuleucel-T infusion 2 days later at weeks 0, 2, and 4. Patients who achieved a partial response (PR) or had stable disease (SD) lasting through week 48 were eligible for re-treatment using the same protocol and dose as their initial treatment. End points included safety, immunologic activity, and antitumor activity. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were enrolled; 18 patients received treatment. Therapy was well tolerated, with no grade 3 or 4 adverse events associated with the treatment. Significant cellular immune responses specific for the immunizing antigen and HER-2 sequences were induced after treatment, as measured by lymphocyte proliferation and interferon gamma enzyme-linked immunospot assay. One patient experienced a PR lasting 6 months. Three additional patients had SD lasting more than 1 year. CONCLUSION: Autologous active cellular immunotherapy with lapuleucel-T was feasible, safe, and well tolerated. The treatment stimulated significant immune responses, which were enhanced after boost infusions. Lapuleucel-T therapy was associated with tumor response or extended disease stabilization in some patients and warrants further investigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: