deKernion J B
Prog Clin Biol Res. 1984;153:409-21.
The clinical trials of immunotherapy of renal carcinoma have been based on the theory that manipulation of the host-immune response can influence the growth of malignant cells in the host. The results cited above do not demonstrate a clear therapeutic role of immunotherapy but they do provide evidence to encourage further studies. This is especially pertinent in view of the current absence of effective systemic agents. The stimulation of the host response appears to be finite and cannot be expected to control massive tumor burden. The clinical trials analyzed above must be interpreted with this understanding. It remains necessary to test new approaches in patients with measurable disease, but stimulation of the immune response is finite and immunotherapy is probably best utilized as systemic adjuvants or in patients with limited metastases. However, the paramount task of those interested in immunotherapy of renal carcinoma remains adherence to the proper progression from Phase I to Phase II and finally to randomized Phase III trials. The natural history of this tumor confounds interpretation of many studies and can only be placed in proper context through the randomized trial mechanism. In the analysis of results of immunotherapeutic and other trials of advanced renal cancer, more careful attention must be given to the specific nature of the patient's disease. In all of the trials discussed above, responses were noted primarily in patients with limited pulmonary metastases. Indeed, since it is necessary that measurable disease be present for inclusion into most trials, this type of patient is the one most commonly treated. It is this group of patients who are most likely to undergo spontaneous regression or to have prolonged periods of stabilization without any other treatment. In addition, the impact of adjunctive nephrectomy in these patients must be clarified. The pulmonary metastases seem to behave differently than lesions at other sites and certainly seem to respond to almost any form of therapy far better than lesions at other sites. The significance of stratification of patients in randomized Phase III trials is therefore obvious and a true understanding of the therapeutic implications of our interventions can only be substantiated by careful randomized studies.
肾癌免疫治疗的临床试验基于这样一种理论,即操控宿主免疫反应能够影响宿主体内恶性细胞的生长。上述结果并未证明免疫治疗具有明确的治疗作用,但确实为鼓励进一步研究提供了证据。鉴于目前缺乏有效的全身治疗药物,这一点尤为重要。宿主反应的刺激似乎是有限的,无法期望其控制巨大的肿瘤负荷。必须基于这种认识来解读上述分析的临床试验。对于有可测量疾病的患者,测试新方法仍然很有必要,但免疫反应的刺激是有限的,免疫治疗可能最适合用作全身辅助治疗或用于转移灶有限的患者。然而,对于肾癌免疫治疗感兴趣的人最重要的任务仍然是坚持从I期到II期,最终到随机III期试验的正确进程。这种肿瘤的自然病程使许多研究的解读变得复杂,只有通过随机试验机制才能将其置于恰当的背景中。在分析晚期肾癌免疫治疗及其他试验的结果时,必须更加仔细地关注患者疾病的具体性质。在上述所有试验中,主要在肺转移灶有限的患者中观察到了反应。事实上,由于大多数试验要求存在可测量疾病才能纳入,这类患者是最常接受治疗的。正是这组患者最有可能出现自发消退或在没有任何其他治疗的情况下长期病情稳定。此外,必须阐明辅助性肾切除术对这些患者的影响。肺转移灶的表现似乎与其他部位的病灶不同,而且几乎对任何形式的治疗反应都远优于其他部位的病灶。因此,在随机III期试验中对患者进行分层的重要性显而易见,只有通过仔细的随机研究才能证实我们对干预措施治疗意义的真正理解。