Open AccessAnti‐murine Antibody Response to Mouse Monoclonal Antibodies in Cancer Patients
Author(s) -
Sakahara Harumi,
Saga Tsuneo,
Onodera Hisashi,
Yao Zhengsheng,
Nakamoto Yuji,
Zhang Meili,
Sato Noriko,
Nakada Hiroshi,
Yamashina Ikuo,
Endo Keigo,
Konishi Junji
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
japanese journal of cancer research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.035
H-Index - 141
eISSN - 1349-7006
pISSN - 0910-5050
DOI - 10.1111/j.1349-7006.1997.tb00466.x
Subject(s) - antibody , immunoscintigraphy , monoclonal antibody , ovarian cancer , cancer , medicine , immunology , antibody response , colorectal cancer , gastroenterology , biology , radioimmunotherapy
Although development of human anti‐murine inununoglobulin antibody (HAMA) is often seen in patients receiving murine antibodies, the variety of methods used for detecting HAMA makes it difficult to compare directly the HAMA responses measured by different assays. In the present study, several parameters of the HAMA response to two murine monoclonal antibodies were evaluated. The anti‐sialosyl Tn antibody MLS102 and anti‐CA125 antibody 145‐9, which were labeled with 111 ln, were injected intravenously into 17 colorectal cancer patients and 11 ovarian cancer patients for immnnoscintigraphy, respectively. HAMA was measured by enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay. There was no difference in baseline HAMA levels before antibody injection between the two groups. HAMA developed more frequently in ovarian cancer patients receiving the 145‐9 antibody than in colorectal cancer patients receiving the MLS102 antibody (9/11 vs. 6/17, P <0.05). No significant difference was observed in maximal HAMA levels between the two groups of patients. However, time to reach the maximal levels was delayed and the duration of the response seemed longer in ovarian cancer patients. Among 11 patients receiving the 145‐9 antibody three patients became positive for HAMA more than 2 months after antibody injection and the other two had HAMA activity in their sera for more than 17 months. HAMA response was different between the two antibodies, and late onset or long duration of HAMA response against the 145‐9 antibody suggests the importance of HAMA measurement in patients who receive a second injection of murine antibodies even after a long interval.