Study of Heat Shock Protein-Peptide Complex (HSPPC-96) Versus IL-2/DTIC for Stage IV Melanoma

NCT ID: NCT00039000

Last Updated: 2012-09-07

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

PHASE3

Total Enrollment

350 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2002-03-31

Study Completion Date

2005-12-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The primary goal of this study is to determine if people with metastatic melanoma who receive Heat Shock Protein-Peptide Complex - 96 (HSPPC-96 or Oncophage) after surgery live longer than people who may or may not have surgery but who receive conventional chemotherapy including IL-2/DTIC. A second goal is to determine the safety and frequency of side effects in subjects who receive therapy with HSPPC-96.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Primary Objective:

* To determine whether subjects with stage IV melanoma randomized to HSPPC-96 have longer survival than subjects randomized to physician's choice including interleukin-2 and/or dacarbazine/temozolomide and/or complete tumor resection.

Secondary Objective:

* To determine frequency of adverse events in subjects randomized to HSPPC-96.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Malignant Melanoma

Keywords

Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.

Immunotherapy, Cancer, Melanoma, Skin Cancer, tumor

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

HSPPC-96 or Oncophage

Intervention Type DRUG

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Stage IV Melanoma (AJCC);
* No prior therapy for stage IV melanoma;
* No prior therapy with interleukin-2 and/or dacarbazine/temozolomide within the past 12 months prior to study entry;
* Candidate for surgical resection of some/all sites of melanoma and expected to obtain greater tan or equal to 7 grams of viable cancer tissue (in aggregate), which is equivalent to a greater than or equal to 2 cm lesion on CT/MRI or clinical examination;
* No brain metastases;
* ECOG score 0 or 1;
* Adequate cardiac function;
* Adequate hematopoietic, liver and renal function;
* Female subjects of child-bearing potential must agree to use contraception during the study
* Signed written informed consent.

Exclusion Criteria

* Mucosal or ocular melanomas;
* Other malignancies treated within the last five years, except in situ cervix carcinoma or non-melanoma skin cancer;
* Primary or secondary immunodeficiency, in the opinion of the investigator (including immunosuppressive disease, or use of systemic corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive medications);
* Prior splenectomy;
* Uncontrolled infection or other serious medical illnesses;
* Women who are pregnant or breast-feeding;
* Subjects participating in any other studies requiring administration of an investigational drug/biologic agent.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Agenus Inc.

INDUSTRY

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Birmingham, Alabama, United States

Site Status

Scottsdale, Arizona, United States

Site Status

Berkeley, California, United States

Site Status

Los Angeles, California, United States

Site Status

Stanford, California, United States

Site Status

Vista, California, United States

Site Status

Denver, Colorado, United States

Site Status

Farmington, Connecticut, United States

Site Status

Jacksonville, Florida, United States

Site Status

Lakeland, Florida, United States

Site Status

Miami Beach, Florida, United States

Site Status

Atlanta, Georgia, United States

Site Status

Chicago, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Park Ridge, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Kansas City, Kansas, United States

Site Status

Louisville, Kentucky, United States

Site Status

Baltimore, Maryland, United States

Site Status

Boston, Massachusetts, United States

Site Status

Robbinsdale, Minnesota, United States

Site Status

Rochester, Minnesota, United States

Site Status

Columbia, Missouri, United States

Site Status

St Louis, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Lebanon, New Hampshire, United States

Site Status

New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

New York, New York, United States

Site Status

Cincinnati, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Cleveland, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States

Site Status

Portland, Oregon, United States

Site Status

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Knoxville, Tennessee, United States

Site Status

Dallas, Texas, United States

Site Status

Houston, Texas, United States

Site Status

Madison, Wisconsin, United States

Site Status

Adelaide, , Australia

Site Status

Camperdown, , Australia

Site Status

Melbourne, , Australia

Site Status

Newcastle, , Australia

Site Status

Wentworthville, , Australia

Site Status

Budapest, , Hungary

Site Status

Debrecen, , Hungary

Site Status

Pécs, , Hungary

Site Status

Szeged, , Hungary

Site Status

Aviano, , Italy

Site Status

Genova, , Italy

Site Status

Milan, , Italy

Site Status

Rimini, , Italy

Site Status

Bialystock, , Poland

Site Status

Bydgoszcz, , Poland

Site Status

Krakow, , Poland

Site Status

Arkhangelsk, , Russia

Site Status

Chelyabinsk, , Russia

Site Status

Kazan', , Russia

Site Status

Krasnodar, , Russia

Site Status

Moscow, , Russia

Site Status

Novosibirsk, , Russia

Site Status

Ryazan, , Russia

Site Status

Saint Petersburg, , Russia

Site Status

Samara, , Russia

Site Status

Stavropol, , Russia

Site Status

Voronezh, , Russia

Site Status

Gothenburg, , Sweden

Site Status

Lund, , Sweden

Site Status

Vaxjo, , Sweden

Site Status

Dnipro, , Ukraine

Site Status

Donetsk, , Ukraine

Site Status

Ivano-Frankivsk, , Ukraine

Site Status

Kiev, , Ukraine

Site Status

Kryvyi Rih, , Ukraine

Site Status

Lviv, , Ukraine

Site Status

Odesa, , Ukraine

Site Status

Uzhhorod, , Ukraine

Site Status

Vinnitsa, , Ukraine

Site Status

Leeds, , United Kingdom

Site Status

London, , United Kingdom

Site Status

Manchester, , United Kingdom

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States Australia Hungary Italy Poland Russia Sweden Ukraine United Kingdom

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

C-100-21

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

NCT00047359

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: nct_alias