Survival update from a multicenter, randomized, phase III trial of vitespen versus observation as adjuvant therapy for renal cell carcinoma in patients at high risk of recurrence

C. G. Wood(Radboud University Nijmegen), Priyanka Srivastava(Radboud University Nijmegen), Louis Lacombe(Radboud University Nijmegen), Gorelov Ai(Radboud University Nijmegen), S. Gorelov(Radboud University Nijmegen), Peter F.A. Mulders(Radboud University Nijmegen), Henryk Zieliński(Radboud University Nijmegen), Florentina Teofilovici(Radboud University Nijmegen), Leah Isakov(Radboud University Nijmegen), Bernard Escudier(Radboud University Nijmegen)
Journal of Clinical Oncology
May 20, 2009
Cited by 15

Abstract

3009 Background: Vitespen (formerly HSPPC-96) is a novel, autologous, heat shock protein (gp96)-peptide complex vaccine. The survival registry is investigating long-term efficacy of vitespen in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients at high risk for recurrence postnephrectomy. Methods: Eligible patients were enrolled and active in Antigenics’ C-100–12 phase III protocol, with a last survival status of alive at study end. Patients randomized in C-100–12 (1:1, vitespen vs. observation) had AJCC stage I (T1b), II (≥5 cm; Fuhrman grade 3/4), stage III, or stage IV (M0) RCC, ≥25% clear cells, ECOG performance score 0/1 and ≥7 g viable tumor tissue for vaccine production. The registry's primary objective is to assess OS. Registry patients are contacted every 6 (no recurrence) or 3 (upon recurrence) m, for a total of 3 y from final C-100–12 data cutoff. Results: Upon C-100–12 termination, 513 of 728 patients were eligible for follow-up. Currently, 306/513 (60%) patients are in the registry database; 207 patients are being contacted. The cohort of 306 patients is well balanced by C-100–12 randomization arm: (59.8% vitespen, 59.5% observation). Formal statistical analyses are in process. Descriptively, updated OS data show a favorable trend in the vitespen arm vs. observation in all analysis sets, especially among patients with earlier-stage disease (stage I/II high grade; n = 118) or at intermediate risk for recurrence (stage I/II high grade, III T1, T2, T3a, low grade; n = 184 ), with 13/125 (10.4%) vs. 21/115 (18.3%), and 18/184 (9.8%) vs. 33/178 (18.5%) deaths reported in the vitespen and observation arms, respectively. Conclusions: The registry provides an opportunity to confirm whether the emerging survival advantage demonstrated at the data cutoff for the C-100–12 trial improves with prolonged follow-up. Formal statistical analyses are ongoing; data available to date show continuing signals of clinical benefit associated with vitespen treatment in patients with better prognostic factors. [Table: see text]


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis