Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
    • CME
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Clinical Cancer Research
Clinical Cancer Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
    • CME
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Featured Articles

Epratuzumab, a Humanized Anti-CD22 Antibody, in Aggressive Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

Phase I/II Clinical Trial Results

John P. Leonard, Morton Coleman, Jamie C. Ketas, Amy Chadburn, Richard Furman, Michael W. Schuster, Eric J. Feldman, Michelle Ashe, Stephen J. Schuster, William A. Wegener, Hans J. Hansen, Heather Ziccardi, Michael Eschenberg, Urte Gayko, Scott Z. Fields, Alessandra Cesano and David M. Goldenberg
John P. Leonard
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Morton Coleman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jamie C. Ketas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amy Chadburn
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard Furman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael W. Schuster
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eric J. Feldman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michelle Ashe
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen J. Schuster
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William A. Wegener
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hans J. Hansen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Heather Ziccardi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Eschenberg
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Urte Gayko
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Scott Z. Fields
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alessandra Cesano
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David M. Goldenberg
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-0294 Published August 2004
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Purpose: We conducted a single-center, dose-escalation study evaluating the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of epratuzumab, an anti-CD22 humanized monoclonal antibody, in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Experimental Design: Epratuzumab was administered once weekly for 4 weeks at 120-1000-mg/m2 doses to 56 patients [most (n = 35) with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma].

Results: Patients were heavily pretreated (median, 4 prior therapies), 25% received prior high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplant, and 84% had bulky disease (≥5 cm). Epratuzumab was well tolerated, with no dose-limiting toxicity. Most (95%) infusions were completed within 1 h. The mean serum half-life was 23.9 days. Across all dose levels and histologies, objective responses (ORs) were observed in five patients (10%; 95% confidence interval, 3–21%), including three complete responses. In patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 15% had ORs. Overall, 11 (20%) patients experienced some tumor mass reduction. Median duration of OR was 26.3 weeks, and median time to progression for responders was 35 weeks. Two responses are ongoing at ≥34 months, including one rituximab-refractory patient.

Conclusions: These data demonstrate that epratuzumab has a good safety profile and exerts antitumor activity in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma at doses of ≥240 mg/m2, thus warranting further evaluation in this clinical setting.

INTRODUCTION

Non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas (NHLs), a heterogeneous group of cancers principally arising from B lymphocytes, represent approximately 4% of all newly diagnosed cancers (1) . Aggressive NHL comprises approximately 30–40% of adult NHL (2) and includes diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), peripheral T-cell lymphoma, and anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Frontline combination chemotherapy cures less than half of the patients with aggressive NHL, and most patients eventually succumb to their disease (3) .

For nearly three decades, the combination chemotherapy regimen of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) has been the standard initial therapy for aggressive NHL. Clinical trials comparing CHOP with more toxic second- and third-generation chemotherapy regimens showed no advantage of the newer regimens over CHOP (4 , 5) . For patients with relapsed chemotherapy-sensitive aggressive NHL, the standard of care in most settings is high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation [ASCT (6)] . However, most patients who die of aggressive NHL either are not candidates for ASCT (3) or relapse after ASCT. After decades of very little progress in the outcomes for patients with aggressive NHL, a number of promising therapies have recently emerged. These include the use of colony-stimulating factors to allow dose escalation of active but myelosuppressive agents (as in the CHOP-14 regimen) and monoclonal antibodies (7 , 8) .

Rituximab [Rituxan; Genentech, Inc. (South San Francisco, CA) and IDEC Pharmaceutical Corp. (San Diego, CA)], a chimeric (mouse/human) anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, was the first therapeutic antibody approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for treatment of relapsed or refractory low-grade or follicular NHL. Approval was based on a total of 166 patients with indolent NHL who had an overall response rate of 48% and a complete remission rate of 6% (9) . Rituximab single-agent activity as second-line treatment in patients with aggressive NHL (DLBCL or MCL) has been somewhat lower. In a Phase II study, Coiffier et al. (10) reported a response rate of 37% in patients with DLBCL (n = 30) and 33% in patients with MCL (n = 12). A retrospective review of a clinical pharmacology database identified 17 patients who were refractory to or relapsed after ASCT and had a higher objective response (OR) rate to rituximab as a single agent (54% in DLBCL and 50% in MCL; Ref. 11 ). Clinical trials have shown that rituximab in combination with CHOP as first-line therapy in older patients with DLBCL provides a statistically significant survival benefit over CHOP (12) . Consequently, this combination therapy has recently been approved in Europe as a first-line therapy in DLBCL patients ages 60 years or older, whereas a United States intergroup study of CHOP with rituximab is currently undergoing evaluation. Rituximab continues to be evaluated in a variety of other settings and indications, both as a single agent and in combination with other therapies.

Other B-cell antigens, such as CD19, CD22, and CD52, represent targets of therapeutic potential for treatment of lymphoma (13) . CD22 is a 135-kDa B-cell-restricted sialoglycoprotein expressed on the B-cell surface only at the mature stages of differentiation (14) . In B-cell NHL, CD22 expression ranges from 91% to 99% in the aggressive and indolent populations, respectively (15) . Using immunohistochemistry staining of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples, CD22 positivity has shown to be highly variable between samples and within the same samples in terms of the percentage of positive cells, intensity of staining, and localization (i.e., membrane versus cytoplasm). The function of CD22 is uncertain, although studies have implicated roles for the antigen both as a component of the B-cell activation complex (16) and as an adhesion molecule (17) . The B cells of CD22-deficient mice have a shorter life span and enhanced apoptosis, which suggests a key role of this antigen in B-cell survival (18) . After binding with its natural ligand(s) or antibodies, CD22 is rapidly internalized, providing a potent costimulatory signal in primary B cells and proapoptotic signals in neoplastic B cells (19) .

The LL2 antibody (formerly called HPB-2) is an IgG2a mouse monoclonal antibody directed against the CD22 antigen (20) . In vitro immunohistological evaluations demonstrated reactivity of the LL2 antibody with 50 of 51 B-cell NHL specimens tested, but not with other malignancies or normal nonlymphoid tissues (20 , 21) . Whereas rituximab has been postulated to act through antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (22) , complement-mediated cytotoxicity (22) , direct induction of apoptosis (23) , or other pathways, the mechanism of action of LL2 is still under active investigation (24) . Epratuzumab, the humanized (CDR-grafted) IgG1 version of LL2, was developed to reduce the potential for immunogenicity, to prolong half-life, and to increase effector function (25) . Preliminary clinical evaluations of this humanized antibody labeled with 131I and with 111In/90Y have shown evidence of tumor localization and accumulation, as well as evidence of therapeutic activity for the radioimmunoconjugate (26, 27, 28) .

Herein we report Phase I/II clinical trial results of epratuzumab in patients with recurrent aggressive NHL, including information on safety, pharmacokinetics, and antilymphoma activity. In this study, epratuzumab was administered by weekly infusion for 4 consecutive weeks at different dose levels. These results demonstrate that single-agent epratuzumab has an excellent safety profile, exhibits antitumor activity, and offers promise as a new agent with potential utility in the treatment of aggressive NHL.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Study Population

Fifty-six patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive NHL (with at least one prior chemotherapy regimen) were enrolled in this Phase I/II study between April 1998 and November 2000. Patients were required to have CD22+ NHL, as shown by either immunohistochemistry or flow cytometry of malignant tissue obtained at any time point before enrollment. International Working Formulation classification of lymphoma subtype was used at the time of study design and was converted to the World Health Organization classification for this report. At least 4 weeks had elapsed after chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or biological therapy, and 2 weeks had elapsed after corticosteroid use. Additional study eligibility criteria included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2; serum creatinine of <1.5 × the upper limits of normal; serum bilirubin of <1.5 × upper limits of normal; and absence of hepatitis B and C positivity. The protocol was approved by the Weill Medical College of Cornell University and New York Presbyterian Hospital Institutional Review Board, and all patients provided informed consent.

Study Drug Administration

Epratuzumab [humanized IgG1 anti-CD22 monoclonal antibody (hLL2)] was produced and quality-controlled at Immunomedics, Inc. (Morris Plains, NJ) and administered by intravenous infusion at doses of 120, 240, 360, 480, 600, or 1000 mg/m2/week for 4 consecutive weeks.

Dose escalation was sequential, with each dose cohort initiated in the absence of any dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in the previous group. Because clinical activity was observed at doses of ≥240 mg/m2 without DLT, dose escalation was stopped at 1000 mg/m2, and additional patients were treated at dose levels of ≥240 mg/m2 to further assess efficacy. Before each infusion, patients were premedicated with acetaminophen and diphenhydramine to minimize any potential infusion reactions.

Study Design

The study was an open-label, Phase I/II trial designed to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of epratuzumab therapy. Infusions were administered once weekly for 4 consecutive weeks, with restaging for treatment response performed 4 weeks after the last infusion. Patients were evaluated every 3–4 months for the first 2 years and every 6 months thereafter until disease progression. Adverse events were recorded throughout the study and graded according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Toxicity Criteria (29) . Laboratory assessments (including serum chemistry, complete blood count, immunophenotyping of blood mononuclear cells, urinalysis, and quantitative serum immunoglobulin) were performed at screening, 24 h after the last infusion, and at restaging. Vital signs were monitored every 15 min during the infusions. Blood samples were tested for the presence of human antihuman antibodies (HAHAs) using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay developed by Immunomedics, Inc., which had a lower level of detection of 25 ng/m. Samples were obtained within 4 weeks before study entry, 24 h after the last infusion, at restaging, and 3–4 months after restaging.

Blood samples to determine serum concentrations of epratuzumab were collected before each weekly infusion, 30 min after the end of each infusion, and periodically thereafter for the next 8 weeks, when possible. More extensive sampling after the fourth infusion sufficient for half-life determination was performed on a subset of patients (n = 10).

Study design used ECOG definitions for complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease, and progressive disease (30) . Bidimensional computed tomography data for the neck/chest and abdomen/pelvis were collected at screening, restaging, and follow-up for evaluation of disease response. Bone marrow aspirate and biopsy were performed at study entry and to confirm CR after treatment in patients who had no radiographic or other evidence of disease but had bone marrow involvement at baseline. A range of dose levels was evaluated to identify safe and potentially active doses for use in Phase II clinical trials.

Study End Points

Safety.

Safety end points included the incidence of adverse events (including those occurring during or within 7 days of the epratuzumab infusion and all later events deemed possibly or probably treatment-related) and change in HAHA status, laboratory values, and infusion-day vital signs. DLT was defined as any grade 3 or 4 (according to the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria) treatment-related adverse event. Maximum tolerated dose was defined as the dose level with an observed incidence of DLT in no more than 1 of 6 patients, such that for a given cohort, if 2 of 3 patients or ≥2 of 6 patients experienced DLTs, the maximum tolerated dose was determined as the dose given in the preceding cohort.

Pharmacokinetics.

Serum concentration of epratuzumab was measured at various time intervals using an anti-idiotype-based competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay developed by Immunomedics, Inc. The mean serum half-life of epratuzumab was calculated based on measurements after the last infusion for those subjects having data available from a sufficient number of time points.

Efficacy.

Efficacy was evaluated by calculating the OR rate overall and at each dose level (the proportion of patients whose best response at any time during the study was either a CR or PR before disease progression); duration of response was defined as the time from the date a response is determined to the date of first evidence of progression or death regardless of cause; and time to progression (TTP) was defined as the time from study day 1 to the date of first evidence of progression or death, if determined to be due to disease progression.

Statistical Analysis

All patients who received ≥1 dose of epratuzumab were included in the safety analyses. The analyses of OR rate for a given dose and TTP were based on the evaluable patient subset (all enrolled patients who received ≥1 dose of epratuzumab, had a diagnosis of recurrent aggressive NHL, and had ≥1 posttreatment evaluation for response or had withdrawn from study before the first posttreatment evaluation of response due to disease progression). Duration of response was analyzed for the patients who responded within the evaluable subset. The proportion of patients with OR is provided with its 95% confidence interval (CI). Median duration of response and TTP were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Karnofsky performance scores were converted to ECOG performance scores for the analysis.

RESULTS

Patients

Fifty-six patients with aggressive NHL received at least 1 dose of epratuzumab and were included in the evaluation of safety. Fifty-two of these patients were included in the evaluation of efficacy; 4 patients withdrew from the study and were not included in the evaluation of efficacy because of inadequate posttreatment evaluation. Dose escalation was conducted with three patients receiving 120 mg/m2 in the initial cohort. Subsequently, three patients per group were treated at each of the 240, 360, 480, and 600 mg/m2/week dose levels, and one patient was treated at the 1000 mg/m2 level. Because biological agents do not necessarily have optimal activity at the maximally tolerated dose, additional patients were treated at dose levels (≥240 mg/m2) where clinical activity was observed to assess efficacy. Overall, of the 52 patients assessable for response in the study, 3 patients received 120 mg/m2, 7 received the 240-mg/m2 dose, 23 subjects received epratuzumab at a weekly dose of 360 mg/m2, 11 received 480 mg/m2, 7 patients received the 600-mg/m2 dose, and 1 received 1000 mg/m2. Thirty-three of the 52 patients who were evaluable for both safety and efficacy had DLBCL.

Patient Characteristics

Demographic characteristics for patients included in the analysis of safety are shown in Table 1⇓ . More men (63%) than women were enrolled; age ranged from 19 to 88 years, with a median age of 61.0 years. Of the patients with available data (n = 50), most (84%) had bulky disease of ≥5 cm, and 63.3% had elevated (>234 units/liter) lactate dehydrogenase levels. Patients had received multiple prior therapies (median, 4 prior therapies; range, 1–11 prior therapies): 58.9% had previously received rituximab; and 25% had received high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplant as prior therapy. Thirty-five patients (62.5%) had DLBCL, 9 (16.1%) had MCL, and 12 had other aggressive histologies (such as follicle center cell lymphoma, grade 3 and diffuse follicle center lymphoma, grade 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Baseline demographic characteristics for patients receiving at least 1 dose of epratuzumab

Study End Points

Safety.

Ninety-six percent of patients experienced one or more adverse events, with 42% of patients experiencing at least one treatment-related adverse event. All treatment-related events were mild to moderate in severity (Fig. 1)⇓ . These events occurred principally with the first infusion and were less common thereafter. The most frequent toxicity for all adverse events was fatigue (23%). Other toxicities (whether or not they were infusion/treatment-related) included vomiting, dyspnea, nausea, back pain, upper respiratory infection, diarrhea, and cough (Table 2)⇓ . No clinical correlation between the frequency of adverse events and administered dose level was observed, and no DLT occurred. No clinically significant changes in laboratory measures (including hematology values and immunoglobulin levels) or vital signs were noted, and no serious treatment-related adverse events occurred. Epratuzumab treatment did not affect T-cell levels as measured by CD3+ cell count. B-cell levels, as measured by CD19+ cell counts, were generally low at study entry (median = 16.1 cells/μl at baseline), likely due to prior therapy; therefore, the effects of epratuzumab on circulating B-cell levels could not be assessed in this study. One patient developed transient HAHAs; of note, this patient had an objective CR. Seven patients died within 30 days of their last infusion; six of seven deaths were related to disease progression.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Treatment-related adverse events by infusion and NCI toxicity grade for patients with aggressive disease (n = 56). Each patient is counted once for each infusion at the highest reported NCI toxicity grade for that infusion. Treatment-related adverse events are defined as those that are possibly or probably related to treatment. □, grade 1 (mild); ▪, grade 2 (moderate).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

All adverse events with at least 10% incidence over all treatment groups combined

Pharmacokinetics.

Based on measurements after the last infusion, epratuzumab had a mean serum half-life of 23.9 days (SD, 13.1 days; n = 10), which is comparable to the half-life of a human IgG1 (21 days; Ref. 31 ).

Efficacy.

When all dosing groups and histologies are considered, 5 of the 52 evaluable patients (10%; 95% CI, 3–21%) achieved an OR. Three patients (6%; 95% CI, 1–16%) had a CR, one each at the 240-, 360-, and 600-mg/m2 dose levels. Two patients (4%; 95% CI, 0–13%) had a PR, one at 240 mg/m2 and one at 360 mg/m2. Twelve patients (23%; 95% CI, 13–37%) had stable disease as best response, and 35 (67%; 95% CI, 53–80%) progressed. An additional DLBCL patient given 480 mg/m2 progressed [increase in the sum of products of greatest diameter (SPD) = 35%] on study day 55 and was included as a nonresponder in the analyses; however, this patient had a PR (decrease in SPD = 73%) on study day 172 and a CR on study day 659 without interim therapy. The duration of response for this patient was 21 months.

Overall, 15% of DLBCL patients had ORs: 2 of 6 (33%), 2 of 13 (15%), and 1 of 5 (20%) patients responded at the 240-, 360-, and 600-mg/m2 dose levels, respectively (Fig. 2)⇓ . No responses were observed at the 480- and 1000-mg/m2 dose levels (n = 8 and n = 1, respectively). Three of the five responses were complete, and by ECOG response criteria, they were confirmed at ≥4 weeks after the first determination of response (30) . No patient who was classified as having a CR had residual nodal lesions of ≥1 cm2 in bidimensional measurements. Overall, 11 (20%) patients (all histologies) experienced some tumor mass reduction (Fig. 3)⇓ . By Kaplan-Meier estimate, the median duration of OR is 26.3 weeks (range, 11.1–219.9+ weeks), and the median TTP for responding patients is 35.0 weeks (range, 20.9–225.7+ weeks). Biopsies were not routinely performed at progression after epratuzumab because this procedure was not prospectively included in the protocol. Interestingly, however, one responder (with multiple prior biopsies demonstrating DLBCL) was found to have progression with marginal zone lymphoma after epratuzumab. Two responses are ongoing at ≥34 months, including one patient with rituximab-refractory disease.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

OR rates by dose for evaluable patients with DLBCL. n = number of evaluable patients. □, PR; ▪, CR.

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Maximum percentage change from baseline in SPD for each treated patient with baseline and post-baseline SPD measurements (n = 56). ∗, patients with absolute value of maximum percentage change ≤ 1. ▴, SPD value > 100%. ○, patients with progressive disease as best response; no post-baseline SPD measurement available.

Characteristics of those patients who responded are shown in Table 3⇓ . All ORs occurred in the DLBCL subset of patients. Increased amounts of serum lactate dehydrogenase were noted at baseline in 80% of responders; otherwise, this group tended to have more favorable prognostic indicators (lower SPD; no lesions of ≥10 cm; four of five patients with ECOG performance status of 0). Although only 38% of all subjects enrolled were women, three of the five responders (60%) were women. Similar proportions (60%) of responders and nonresponders had prior rituximab treatment.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3

Baseline characteristics by response for evaluable patients (N = 52)

DISCUSSION

Unlabeled monoclonal antibody therapy of lymphomas has been under evaluation for more than two decades, focusing mostly on antibodies that target the CD19, CD20, and CD52 antigens associated with B-cell malignancies (32, 33, 34, 35, 36) . In 1980, Nadler et al. (37 , 38) showed that a murine monoclonal antibody could target human lymphoma cells and induce tumor cell death. Lymphoma regressions were observed by Hsu et al. (39) after treatment with tumor-specific anti-idiotype antibodies. Subsequent therapeutic approaches evaluated antibodies directed against B-cell lineage antigens widely associated with B-cell malignancies, with Press et al. (40) demonstrating evidence of activity with a murine antibody targeting CD20. The most significant recent advance in the clinical care of lymphoma patients, however, has been the development of the chimeric anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab, an antibody approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of indolent NHL.

Although the single-agent activity of rituximab is most prominent in low-grade lymphomas, its predominant use in aggressive NHL subtypes is in combination with chemotherapy, particularly CHOP (12) . Despite the demonstrated benefits of rituximab in this patient population, approximately half of patients with DLBCL die of their disease, indicating that new agents are needed. One strategy is the development of non-cross-reactive antibodies targeting other B-cell antigens, which may have different and nonoverlapping mechanism(s) of antitumor activity. Treatment with a combination of a non-cross-reactive antibody and rituximab (and/or chemotherapy) might result in higher antitumor activity than either of the drugs alone. Antibodies targeting the CD19 or CD52 antigens have been tested in B-cell malignancies in general, but clinical benefit with these approaches has not been well established to date in aggressive NHL (32 , 41) .

The wide expression of CD22 in B-cell malignancies (15) , including aggressive lymphoma, and its role in B-cell biology make it a potentially useful target for immunotherapy of aggressive NHL. Previous studies have evaluated murine and humanized forms of an anti-CD22 antibody both preclinically and clinically, as a carrier of radionuclides for NHL imaging and therapy (42, 43, 44) , as well as a conjugate with toxins [ricin (45, 46, 47) , pseudomonas exotoxin (48) , or RNase (49)] for therapy. Results of these trials with one radioimmunoconjugate form of the antibody (42 , 43) suggested that the unlabeled murine antibody had some antilymphoma activity and prompted the development of the humanized form (25) of the naked antibody and its clinical evaluation. Results in patients with indolent NHL showed evidence of both safety and activity in patients with NHL who had progressive disease after numerous prior therapies, including rituximab (50) . In aggressive NHL, development of an unlabeled antibody (rather than radiolabeled agents) may be of particular importance because naked antibodies are generally easier to combine with the chemotherapy agents usually required for disease control, as opposed to indolent NHL, where single agents are commonly used to minimize toxicity.

This trial is the first clinical evaluation of the safety and efficacy of this anti-CD22 humanized monoclonal antibody, epratuzumab, in the treatment of patients with aggressive NHL. It was designed to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of weekly administration of epratuzumab for 4 weeks and to define dosing regimens for further clinical development. Our findings indicate that epratuzumab has an excellent safety profile, with mostly grade 1 toxicities that were principally associated with the first infusion. Side effects were not related to protein dose amount, which is particularly notable given that the vast majority of infusions were completed in 60 min or less. No effects on hematological parameters, immunoglobulin levels, or serum chemistries were observed. Because of relatively low baseline levels (likely related to previous therapy), direct effects of epratuzumab on circulating B-cell levels could not be clearly determined in this study. Of note, evaluation of epratuzumab in a different population of patients (indolent NHL) indicates that epratuzumab administration can result in decreases in number of circulating B cells (50) , and treatment of normal nonhuman primates has yielded similar findings (51) .

It is interesting that across all doses and histologies, 20% of patients demonstrated evidence of some level of antilymphoma activity as measured by reduction in tumor mass. This occurred despite the extensive previous therapy in this group (group members had a median of four previous regimens, reflecting a poor prognosis group). Fifteen percent of subjects with DLBCL demonstrated ORs (three of five were complete), and an additional patient (classified as a nonresponder) had initial disease progression followed by a delayed CR without intervening treatment. This individual had an increase in SPD of 35% at approximately 2 months on study, had a PR (decrease in SPD = 73%) at approximately 6 months, and a CR at nearly 2 years. The time course of this patient’s response, unusual in this disease setting even with cytotoxic drugs, leads us to speculate that immune mechanisms may play a role in the antilymphoma effects of epratuzumab, as with other monoclonal antibodies.

Of note in multiply relapsed DLBCL, two CRs are ongoing at ≥34 months after therapy. Most responding patients had either progressed after high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT (three of five patients) or were ineligible for ASCT (1 patient who was >80 years old). Although this group represents patients with limited therapeutic alternatives, they have been reported to respond well to single-agent rituximab therapy with an OR rate of 53% and a median progression-free survival of 13 months (range, 6–18 months; Ref. 11 ). The clinical activity of epratuzumab in aggressive NHL was limited to the DLBCL subtype in this study; however, this group represented most patients enrolled, and insufficient numbers of patients with other histologies were evaluated to fully assess activity in other NHL subtypes. Responses were seen at doses ranging from 240 to 600 mg/m2, but no clear dose-response relationship was observed. This result reflects the relatively small number of patients treated at each dose level and is consistent with findings in patients with indolent NHL, in which clinical responses appear to be higher at the 360-mg/m2/week × 4 dose level (50) . Further clinical evaluation of epratuzumab administered at doses ranging from 240 to 600 mg/m2 in a Phase II setting is warranted.

The precise mechanism of action of epratuzumab has not been defined but may relate to effects on B-cell signaling (through induction of CD22 phosphorylation). Ligation of human CD22 with monoclonal antibodies (or natural ligands) triggers internalization of the complex, tyrosine phosphorylation of the cytoplasmic tail of CD22, and binding of the tyrosine phosphatase SHP-1, a negative regulator of signaling from the B-cell receptor. As a consequence in resting B cells, CD22 engagement negatively regulates BCR signaling. Of note, engagement of CD22 in activated B cells results (paradoxically) in up-regulation of BCR signaling (16) . With respect to the mechanism of action of epratuzumab, it is possible that inappropriate signaling and interference with CD22 signaling due to antibody binding may render cells more prone to apoptosis (24) . Additionally, a recent report suggested that antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity activity was involved in the antitumor activity of epratuzumab in preclinical models, and it was also shown that, in these models, epratuzumab can enhance the efficacy of rituximab when the two antibodies are combined (52, 53, 54) . This appears in support of preliminary clinical observations that in low-grade follicular and DLBCL histologies (55) , the combination of epratuzumab with rituximab could potentially offer greater therapeutic effects than either agent given alone, reflected by an apparent improvement in the CR rate. The demonstration of CRs in DLBCL in this Phase I/II study with single-agent epratuzumab supports further evaluation of this antibody combination. Ongoing studies include evaluation of epratuzumab in combination with CHOP-rituximab in first-line treatment of DLBCL.

Acknowledgments

We thank the patients who agreed to participate in this clinical trial. Jennifer Fiore, Alan Dosik, Darlene Dreher, and Manuel Vargas assisted in the treatment and monitoring of patients. Dr. Ding Shieh and Yan Xing (both from Immunomedics, Inc.) performed specialized assays of clinical samples, and Rohini Mitra and her team at Immunomedics were responsible for antibody production. Dr. Ellen Laber and Christine Dale (both from Amgen, Inc.) assisted in manuscript preparation. StatProbe, Inc. assisted with statistical analyses.

Footnotes

  • Grant support: Immunomedics, Inc. (Morris Plains, NJ) and Amgen Inc. (Thousand Oaks, CA). J. Leonard is supported in part by a K23 award from the National Institutes of Health (RR16814-02) and a pilot grant from the Cornell Center for Aging Research and Clinical Care. J. Leonard has served as a consultant to Amgen. M. Coleman, W. Wegener, H. Hansen, H. Ziccardi, and D. Goldenberg are officers and/or employees of Immunomedics, Inc. M. Eschenberg, U. Gayko, S. Fields, and A. Cesano are or were employees of Amgen Inc.

  • The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

  • Requests for reprints: John P. Leonard, Center for Lymphoma and Myeloma and Division of Hematology and Oncology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University and New York Presbyterian Hospital, 520 East 70th Street, New York, NY 10021. Phone: (212) 746-2932; Fax: (212) 746-3844; E-mail: jpleonar{at}med.cornell.edu

  • Received February 16, 2004.
  • Revision received April 14, 2004.
  • Accepted April 19, 2004.

References

  1. ↵
    Jemal A, Thomas A, Murray T, Thun M. Cancer statistics, 2002. CA-Cancer J Clin, 52: 23-47, 2002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Diebold J, et al The World Health Organization classification of neoplasms of the hematopoietic and lymphoid tissues: report of the Clinical Advisory Committee meeting–Airlie House, Virginia, November, 1997. Hematol J, 1: 53-66, 2001.
  3. ↵
    Fisher RI. Current therapeutic paradigm for the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Semin Oncol, 27(Suppl 12): 2-8, 2000.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    Fisher RI, Gaynor ER, Dahlberg S, et al Comparison of a standard regimen (CHOP) with three intensive chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med, 328: 1002-6, 1993.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    Gordon LI, Harrington D, Andersen J, et al Comparison of a second-generation combination chemotherapeutic regimen (m-BACOD) with standard regimen (CHOP) for advanced diffuse non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med, 327: 1342-9, 1992.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    Vose JM, Sharp G, Chan WC, et al Autologous transplantation for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: results of a randomized trial evaluating graft source and minimal residual disease. J Clin Oncol, 20: 2344-52, 2002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    Itoh K, Ohtsu T, Wakita H, et al Dose-escalation study of CHOP with or without prophylactic G-CSF in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol, 11: 1241-7, 2000.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    Glennie MJ, Johnson PWM. Clinical trials of antibody therapy. Immunol Today, 8: 403-10, 2000.
  9. ↵
    McLaughlin P, Grillo-Lopez AJ, Link BK, et al Rituximab chimeric anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy for relapsed indolent lymphoma: half of patients respond to a four-dose treatment program. J Clin Oncol, 16: 2825-33, 1998.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  10. ↵
    Coiffier B, Haioun C, Ketterer N, et al Rituximab (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) for the treatment of patients with relapsing or refractory aggressive lymphoma: a multicenter phase II study. Blood, 92: 1927-32, 1998.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    Pan D, Moskowitz CH, Zelenetz AD, et al Rituximab for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas relapsing after or refractory to autologous stem cell transplantation. Cancer J, 8: 371-6, 2002.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    Coiffier B. Rituximab in combination with CHOP improves survival in elderly patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Semin Oncol, 29(Suppl 6): 18-22, 2002.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    Grillo-Lopez AJ, Dallarie BK, McClure A, et al Monoclonal antibodies: a new era in the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Curr Pharm Biotechnol, 2: 301-11, 2001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    Dorken B, Moldenhauer G, Pezzutto A, et al 39 (B3), a B lineage-restricted antigen whose cell surface expression is limited to resting and activated human B lymphocytes. J Immunol, 136: 4470-9, 1986.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    Cesano A, Gayko U, Brannan C, et al Differential expression of CD22 by indolent and aggressive NHLs: implications for targeted immunotherapy. Blood, 100: 350a 2002.
  16. ↵
    Sato S, Tuscano JM, Inaoki M, Tedder TF. CD.22 negatively and positively regulates signal transduction through the B lymphocyte antigen receptor. Semin Immunol, 10: 287-97, 1998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    Engel P, Nojima Y, Rothstein D, et al The same epitope on CD22 of B lymphocytes mediates the adhesion of erythrocytes, T and B lymphocytes, neutrophils, and monocytes. J Immunol, 150: 4719-32, 1993.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    Otipoby KL, Andersson KB, Draves KE, et al CD22 regulates thymus-independent responses and the lifespan of B cells. Nature (Lond), 384: 634-7, 1996.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    Sato S, Miller AS, Inaoki M, et al CD22 is both a positive and negative regulator of B lymphocyte antigen receptor signal transduction: altered signaling in CD22-deficient mice. Immunity, 5: 551-62, 1996.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    Pawlak-Byczkowska EJ, Hansen HJ, Dion AS, Goldenberg DM. Two new monoclonal antibodies, EPB-1 and EPB-2, reactive with human lymphoma. Cancer Res, 49: 4568-77, 1989.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    Stein R, Belisle E, Hansen HJ, Goldenberg DM. Epitope specificity of the anti-(B cell lymphoma) monoclonal antibody, LL2. Cancer Immunol Immunother, 37: 293-8, 1993.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    Reff M, Carner K, Chambers K, et al Depletion of B cells in vivo by a chimeric mouse human monoclonal antibody to CD20. Blood, 83: 435-45, 1994.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    Shan D, Ledbette JA, Press OW. Apoptosis of malignant human B cells by ligation of CD20 with monoclonal antibodies. Blood, 91: 1644-52, 1998.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    Carnahan J, Wang P, Kendal lR. Epratuzumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting CD22: characterization of in vitro properties. Clin Cancer Res, 9: 3982S-90S, 2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    Leung SO, Goldenberg DM, Dion AS, et al Construction and characterization of a humanized, internalizing, B-cell (CD22)-specific, leukemia/lymphoma antibody, LL2. Mol Immunol, 32: 1413-27, 1995.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    Juweid ME, Stadtmauer E, Hajjar G, et al Pharmacokinetics, dosimetry, and initial therapeutic results with 131I- and 111In-/90Y-labeled humanized LL2 anti-CD22 monoclonal antibody in patients with relapsed, refractory non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res, 5(Suppl 10): 3292s-303s, 1999.
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    Griffiths GL, Govindan SV, Sharkey RM, Fisher DR, Goldenberg DM. 90Y-DOTA-hLL2: an agent for radioimmunotherapy of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Nucl Med, 44: 77-84, 2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    Linden O, Tennevall J, Hindorf C, et al Radioimmunotherapy using 131I-labelled anti-CD22 monoclonal antibody (LL2) in patients with previously-treated B-cell lymphomas. Clin Cancer Res, 5(Suppl 10): 3287s-91s, 1999.
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria. Version 2.0. http://home.earthlink.net/∼johnres/ncitox/ncitox.html (accessed 12 September 2003).
  30. ↵
    Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol, 5: 649-55, 1982.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    Turner A. Antibodies Roitt I Brostoff J Male D eds. . Immunology, 65-86, Mosby New York 2001.
  32. ↵
    Brown KS, Levitt DJ, Shannon M, Link BK. Phase II trial of Remitogen (humanized 1D10) monoclonal antibody targeting class II patients with relapsed low-grade or follicular lymphoma. Clin Lymphoma, 2: 188-90, 2001.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  33. ↵
    Witzig TE, Gordon LI, Cabanillas F, et al Randomized controlled trial of yttrium-90-labeled ibritumomab tiuxetan radioimmunotherapy versus rituximab immunotherapy for patients with relapsed or refractory low-grade, follicular, or transformed B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol, 20: 2453-63, 2002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    Vose JM, Wahl RL, Saleh M, et al Multicenter phase II study of iodine-131 tositumomab for chemotherapy-relapsed/refractory low-grade and transformed low-grade B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. J Clin Oncol, 18: 1316-23, 2000.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    Kaminski MS, Zelenetz AD, Press OW, et al Pivotal study of iodine-131 tositumomab for chemotherapy-refractory low-grade or transformed low-grade B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. J Clin Oncol, 19: 3918-28, 2001.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    Hekman A, Honselaar A, Vuist WMJ, et al Initial experience with treatment of human B-cell lymphoma with anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody. Cancer Immunol Immunother, 32: 364-72, 1991.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    Nadler LM, Stashenko P, Hardy R, et al Serotherapy of a patient with a monoclonal antibody directed against a human lymphoma-associated antigen. Cancer Res, 40: 3147-54, 1980.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    Nadler LM, Stashenko P, Hardy R, Schlossman SF. A monoclonal antibody defining a lymphoma-associated antigen in man. J Immunol, 125: 570-7, 1980.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    Hsu FJ, Kwak L, Campbell M, et al Clinical trials of idiotype-specific vaccine in B-cell lymphomas. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 690: 385-7, 1993.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. ↵
    Press OW, Appelbaum F, Ledbetter JA, et al Monoclonal antibody 1F5 (anti-CD20) serotherapy of human B cell lymphomas. Blood, 69: 584-91, 1987.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    Lundin J, Osterborg A, Brittinger G, et al CAMPATH.-1H monoclonal antibody in therapy for previously treated low-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas: a phase II multicenter study. J Clin Oncol, 16: 3257-63, 1998.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  42. ↵
    Vose JM, Colcher D, Gobar L, et al Phase I/II trial of multiple dose 131iodine-Mab LL2 (CD22) in patients with recurrent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma, 38: 91-101, 2000.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. ↵
    Goldenberg DM, Horowitz JA, Sharkey RM, et al Targeting, dosimetry, and radioimmunotherapy of B-cell lymphomas with iodine-131-labeled LL2 monoclonal antibody. J Clin Oncol, 9: 548-64, 1991.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  44. ↵
    Juweid M, Sharkey RM, Markowitz A, et al Treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma with radiolabeled murine, chimeric, or humanized LL2, an anti-CD22 monoclonal antibody. Cancer Res, 55(Suppl 1): 5899s-907s, 1995.
    OpenUrl
  45. ↵
    Vitetta ES, Stone M, Amlot P, et al Phase I immunotoxin trial in patients with B-cell lymphoma. Cancer Res, 51: 4052-8, 1991.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. ↵
    Sausville EA, Headlee D, Stetler-Stevenson M, et al Continuous infusion of the anti-CD22 immunotoxin IgG-RFB4-SMPT-dgA in patients with B-cell lymphoma: a phase I study. Blood, 85: 3457-65, 1995.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. ↵
    Amlot PL, Stone MJ, Cunningham D, et al A phase I study of an anti-CD22-deglycosylated ricin A chain immunotoxin in the treatment of B-cell lymphomas resistant to conventional therapy. Blood, 82: 2624-33, 1993.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    Kreitman RJ, Hansen HJ, Jones AL, et al Pseudomonas exotoxin-based immunotoxins containing the antibody LL2 or LL2-Fab′ induce regression of subcutaneous human B-cell lymphoma in mice. Cancer Res, 53: 819-25, 1993.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    Newton DL, Hansen HJ, Liu H, et al Specifically targeting the CD22 receptor of human B-cell lymphomas with RNA damaging agents. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol, 39: 78-86, 2001.
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    Leonard JP, Coleman M, Matthews JC, et al Phase I/II trial of epratuzumab (humanized anti-CD22 antibody) in indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol, 21: 3051-9, 2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    Briddell R, Kern B, Stoney G, et al The effect of epratuzumab on peripheral blood B-cell levels in normal, male cynomolgus monkeys. Blood, 100: 576a 2002.
  52. ↵
    Czuczman MS, Reising S, Repasky EA, et al Concurrent administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) or granulocyte-monocyte colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) enhance rituximab’s biological activity and upregulate CD11b in a severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) mouse lymphoma model. Blood, 100: 157a 2002.
    OpenUrl
  53. ↵
    Hernandez-Ilizaliturri FJ, Gada P, Repasky EA, Czuczman MS. Enhancement in anti-tumor activity of rituximab when combined with epratuzumab or apolizumab (Hu1d10) in a B-cell lymphoma severe combined immunodeficiency mouse model. Blood, 100: 158a 2002.
    OpenUrl
  54. ↵
    Gada P, Hernandez-Ilizaliturri FJ, Repasky EA, Czuczman MS. Epratuzumab’s predominant antitumor activity in vitro/in vivo against non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) is via antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC). Blood, 100: 353a 2002.
  55. ↵
    Leonard JP, Coleman M, Matthews JC, et al Epratuzumab (anti-CD22) and rituximab (anti-CD20) combination immunotherapy for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: preliminary response data. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol, 21: 266a 2002.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Clinical Cancer Research: 10 (16)
August 2004
Volume 10, Issue 16
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Clinical Cancer Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Epratuzumab, a Humanized Anti-CD22 Antibody, in Aggressive Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Clinical Cancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Clinical Cancer Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Epratuzumab, a Humanized Anti-CD22 Antibody, in Aggressive Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
John P. Leonard, Morton Coleman, Jamie C. Ketas, Amy Chadburn, Richard Furman, Michael W. Schuster, Eric J. Feldman, Michelle Ashe, Stephen J. Schuster, William A. Wegener, Hans J. Hansen, Heather Ziccardi, Michael Eschenberg, Urte Gayko, Scott Z. Fields, Alessandra Cesano and David M. Goldenberg
Clin Cancer Res August 15 2004 (10) (16) 5327-5334; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-0294

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Epratuzumab, a Humanized Anti-CD22 Antibody, in Aggressive Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
John P. Leonard, Morton Coleman, Jamie C. Ketas, Amy Chadburn, Richard Furman, Michael W. Schuster, Eric J. Feldman, Michelle Ashe, Stephen J. Schuster, William A. Wegener, Hans J. Hansen, Heather Ziccardi, Michael Eschenberg, Urte Gayko, Scott Z. Fields, Alessandra Cesano and David M. Goldenberg
Clin Cancer Res August 15 2004 (10) (16) 5327-5334; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-0294
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • PATIENTS AND METHODS
    • Statistical Analysis
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Featured Articles

  • Differential Effects of Delivery of Omega-3 Fatty Acids to Human Cancer Cells by Low-Density Lipoproteins versus Albumin
  • Tumor Necrosis Factor–Related Apoptosis-Inducing Ligand–Induced Apoptosis Is Inhibited by Bcl-2 but Restored by the Small Molecule Bcl-2 Inhibitor, HA 14-1, in Human Colon Cancer Cells
  • Functionalization of Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Using Phage Display Technique and PEGylation Improves Its Antitumor Therapeutic Window
Show more Featured Articles

Clinical Trials

  • Abstract B32: RADIANCE: An open-label, nonrandomized, prospective biomarker study to assess analytic concordance between noninvasive testing and tissue testing for EGFR T790M mutation detection in patients with non-small cell lung cancer
  • Abstract B33: Expansion study of pegylated arginine deiminase (ADI-PEG20), pemetrexed, and cisplatin in patients with ASS1-deficient non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (TRAP)
  • Abstract B34: Safety and activity of the IL-15/sIL-15Rα complex ALT-803 in combination with the anti-PD1 mAb nivolumab in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer
Show more Clinical Trials
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  YouTube  RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • CCR Focus Archive
  • Meeting Abstracts

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Clinical Cancer Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Clinical Cancer Research
eISSN: 1557-3265
ISSN: 1078-0432

Advertisement