This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Conry, R. M. Articles by LoBuglio, A. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Conry, R. M. Articles by LoBuglio, A. F.

Phase I Trial of a Recombinant Vaccinia Virus Encoding Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Metastatic Adenocarcinoma: Comparison of Intradermal versus Subcutaneous Administration

Comprehensive Cancer Center, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama 35294-3300 [R. M. C., M. B. K., M. N. S., K. O. A., D. L. B., S. E. M., D. C., R. B. A., A. F. L.]; and Laboratory of Tumor Immunology and Biology, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 [J. S.]

The principal objectives of this trial were twofold: (a) to examine the safety and relative efficacy of intradermal needle injection versus s.c. jet administration of a carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)-encoding recombinant vaccinia virus (rV-CEA) over a limited dose range and (b) to evaluate CEA-specific immune responses or antitumor effects induced by rV-CEA vaccination. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups, depending upon the technique of vaccine administration. All 20 patients received two doses of 10⁷ or 10⁸ pfu of rV-CEA at a 4-week interval. Toxicity was limited to modest local inflammation at the inoculation site as well as low-grade fever and increased fatigue, each affecting fewer than 20% of the patients. No evidence of CEA-specific lymphoproliferation, interleukin 2 release, delayed-type hypersensitivity, or antibody response was observed. Thus, the efficacy comparison between the two administration techniques was based upon the induction of immune responses to the vaccinia virus vector. Both techniques induced vaccinia-specific lymphoproliferation, interleukin 2 release, and antibody responses of comparable magnitude and frequency as well as protected 80% of patients against pustule formation following vaccinia scarification. Thus, there is no compelling reason to recommend one administration technique over the other based upon toxicity or efficacy. We have selected s.c. jet injection for subsequent trials of rV-CEA based on the ability to accommodate larger injection volumes, enhanced standardization between clinicians, and avoidance of needles that could transmit the vaccine or blood-borne pathogens to health care workers. We recommend use of 10⁸ pfu doses for subsequent trials of recombinant vaccinia virus vaccines based upon the favorable toxicity profile and more consistent local pustule formation indicative of an adequate inoculation of live virus. No objective clinical responses to the rV-CEA vaccine were observed among this population of patients with widely metastatic adenocarcinoma.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. D. Cassaday, P. M. Sondel, D. M. King, M. D. Macklin, J. Gan, T. F. Warner, C. L. Zuleger, A. J. Bridges, H. G. Schalch, K. M. Kim, et al. A Phase I Study of Immunization Using Particle-Mediated Epidermal Delivery of Genes for gp100 and GM-CSF into Uninvolved Skin of Melanoma Patients Clin. Cancer Res., January 15, 2007; 13(2): 540 - 549. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Nagorsen and E. Thiel Clinical and immunologic responses to active specific cancer vaccines in human colorectal cancer. Clin. Cancer Res., May 15, 2006; 12(10): 3064 - 3069. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Mosolits, G. Ullenhag, and H. Mellstedt Therapeutic vaccination in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. A review of immunological and clinical results Ann. Onc., June 1, 2005; 16(6): 847 - 862. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. A. Morse, T. M. Clay, A. C. Hobeika, T. Osada, S. Khan, S. Chui, D. Niedzwiecki, D. Panicali, J. Schlom, and H. K. Lyerly Phase I Study of Immunization with Dendritic Cells Modified with Fowlpox Encoding Carcinoembryonic Antigen and Costimulatory Molecules Clin. Cancer Res., April 15, 2005; 11(8): 3017 - 3024. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. H Palmer, M.-J. Chen, and D. J Kerr Gene therapy for colorectal cancer Br. Med. Bull., December 1, 2002; 64(1): 201 - 225. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. W. Greiner, H. Zeytin, M. R. Anver, and J. Schlom Vaccine-based Therapy Directed against Carcinoembryonic Antigen Demonstrates Antitumor Activity on Spontaneous Intestinal Tumors in the Absence of Autoimmunity Cancer Res., December 1, 2002; 62(23): 6944 - 6951. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. M. Conry, D. T. Curiel, T. V. Strong, S. E. Moore, K. O. Allen, D. L. Barlow, D. R. Shaw, and A. F. LoBuglio Safety and Immunogenicity of a DNA Vaccine Encoding Carcinoembryonic Antigen and Hepatitis B Surface Antigen in Colorectal Carcinoma Patients Clin. Cancer Res., September 1, 2002; 8(9): 2782 - 2787. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. M. Conry, K. O. Allen, S.-w. Lee, S. E. Moore, D. R. Shaw, and A. F. LoBuglio Human Autoantibodies to Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) Induced by a Vaccinia-CEA Vaccine Clin. Cancer Res., January 1, 2000; 6(1): 34 - 41. [Abstract] [Full Text]