Technology evaluation: HSPPC-96, antigenics
Minev, B.R.
Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 5(6): 680-687
2003
ISSN/ISBN: 1464-8431 PMID: 14755896 Document Number: 556538
Antigenics is developing HSPPC-96, a vaccine based on heat shock protein for the potential treatment of various cancer indications. The compound is currently undergoing phase III clinical trials for renal cell carcinoma and melanoma.
Document emailed within 1 workday
Related Documents
Mikhaĭlitsyn, F.S.; Petrov, I.F.; Bol'shakova, A.I.; Lebedeva, M.N.; Lychko, N.D. 1995: The technology for manufacturing antiparasitic preparations. 4. the development of a technology for producing the anthelmintic bromoksan in finely dispersed form and the evaluation of its antifascioliasis activity Meditsinskaia Parazitologiia i Parazitarnye Bolezni 3: 41-42Mikhaĭlitsyn, F.S.; Drusviatskaia, S.K.; Uvarova, N.A.; Taits, S.Z.; Stoianovich, F.M.; Vol'kenshteĭn, I.B.; Lebedeva, M.N.; Krotov, A.I.; Lychko, N.D. 1994: The technology for manufacturing antiparasitic preparations. 3. the development of a technology for producing the anthelmintic embovin (pyrantel embonate) in finely dispersed form and the evaluation of its anthelmintic properties Meditsinskaia Parazitologiia i Parazitarnye Bolezni 2: 24-26
Jørgensen, M.S.; Jørgensen, U. 2009: Green technology foresight of high technology: a social shaping of technology approach to the analysis of hopes and hypes Technology Analysis-Strategic Management 21(3): 363-379
Sakai, F.; Kondo, M.; Ito, H.; Ota, N. 1982: Evaluation of the extent of basic nursing technology knowledge at the end of the program at our school--self-evaluation by the students and a survey of frequencies of clinical training sessions Kango Tenbo. Japanese Journal of Nursing Science 7(3): 218-224
Ding, C.; Jones, G. 2003: Technology evaluation: MRA, Chugai Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 5(1): 64-69
Zhang, Z. 2001: Technology evaluation: MG-98, MethylGene Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 3(6): 599-604
Mukhtar, M.; Parveen, Z.; Pomerantz, R.J. 2000: Technology evaluation: PRO-542, Progenics Pharmaceuticals inc Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 2(6): 697-702
Paul, S.ép. 2003: Technology evaluation: CpG-7909, Coley Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 5(5): 553-559
Galanis, E. 2002: Technology evaluation: Allovectin-7, Vical Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 4(1): 80-87
Golab, J.; Stoklosa, T. 2005: Technology evaluation: SB-485232, GlaxoSmithKline Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 7(1): 85-93
Doehn, C.; Jocham, D. 2000: Technology evaluation: TG-1031, Transgene SA Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 2(1): 106-111
Barnard, D.L. 2000: Technology evaluation: Sch-58500, Canji Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 2(5): 586-592
Gnanakumaran, G.; Babu, K.S. 2003: Technology evaluation: mepolizumab, GlaxoSmithKline Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 5(3): 321-325
Reinis, M. 2005: Technology evaluation: NV-1020, MediGene Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 7(4): 366-375
Errasti, F. 1996: Various sources of medical technology evaluation Revista de Medicina de la Universidad de Navarra 40(4): 4-5
Li, K.; Stewart, D.J.; Ward, H.J. 1999: Technology evaluation: gene therapy (FGF-5), Vical Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 1(2): 260-265
Morse, M. 2005: Technology evaluation: Rexin-G, Epeius Biotechnologies Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 7(2): 164-169
Sun, S. 2000: Technology evaluation: SELEX, Gilead Sciences Inc Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 2(1): 100-105
Detre, K. 1993: What can comparative databases contribute to the evaluation of new technology? Journal of Invasive Cardiology 5(2): 53-59
Vinores, S.A. 2003: Technology evaluation: pegaptanib, Eyetech/Pfizer Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 5(6): 673-679