Jochen Utikal

Prof. Dr. Jochen Utikal

German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

27Years (2000-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
9 October 2015 in Science
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
EAEliezer M. Van Allen
Eliezer M. Van Allen
DMDiana Miao
Diana Miao
BSBastian Schilling
Bastian Schilling
SSSachet A. Shukla
Sachet A. Shukla
CBChristian Blank
Christian Blank
LGLevi A. Garraway
Levi A. Garraway
Is cancer immunotherapy a private affair?: Immune checkpoint blockade, a relatively new cancer treatment, substantially extends the survival of a subset of patients. Previous work has shown that patients whose tumors harbor the largest number of mutations—and thus produce a large number of “neoantigens” recognized as foreign by the immune system—are most likely to benefit. Expanding on these earlier studies, Van Allen et al. studied over 100 patients with melanoma and found a similar correlation (see the Perspective by Gubin and Schreiber). There was no evidence, however, that specific neoantigen sequences were shared by patients who responded. Science , this issue p. 207 , see also p. 158

5 July 2017 in Nature
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
USUgur Sahin
Ugur Sahin
EDEvelyna Derhovanessian
Evelyna Derhovanessian
MMMatthias Miller
Matthias Miller
BKBjörn-Philipp Kloke
Björn-Philipp Kloke
PSPetra Simon
Petra Simon
ÖTÖzlem Türeci
Özlem Türeci

12 July 2012 in New England Journal of Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
KFKeith T Flaherty
Keith T Flaherty
Caroline RobertCaroline Robert
Caroline Robert
PHPeter Hersey
Peter Hersey
PNPaul Nathan
Paul Nathan
Claus GarbeClaus Garbe
Claus Garbe
MGMETRIC Study Group
METRIC Study Group
Activating mutations in serine–threonine protein kinase B-RAF (BRAF) are found in 50% of patients with advanced melanoma. Selective BRAF-inhibitor therapy improves survival, as compared with chemotherapy, but responses are often short-lived. In previous trials, MEK inhibition appeared to be promising in this population. In this phase 3 open-label trial, we randomly assigned 322 patients who had metastatic melanoma with a V600E or V600K BRAF mutation to receive either trametinib, an oral selective MEK inhibitor, or chemotherapy in a 2:1 ratio. Patients received trametinib (2 mg orally) once daily or intravenous dacarbazine (1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area) or paclitaxel (175 mg per square meter) every 3 weeks. Patients in the chemotherapy group who had disease progression were permitted to cross over to receive trametinib. Progression-free survival was the primary end point, and overall survival was a secondary end point. Median progression-free survival was 4.8 months in the trametinib group and 1.5 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death in the trametinib group, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.63; P<0.001). At 6 months, the rate of overall survival was 81% in the trametinib group and 67% in the chemotherapy group despite crossover (hazard ratio for death, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.92; P=0.01). Rash, diarrhea, and peripheral edema were the most common toxic effects in the trametinib group and were managed with dose interruption and dose reduction; asymptomatic and reversible reduction in the cardiac ejection fraction and ocular toxic effects occurred infrequently. Secondary skin neoplasms were not observed. Trametinib, as compared with chemotherapy, improved rates of progression-free and overall survival among patients who had metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; METRIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01245062.)

13 November 2014 in New England Journal of Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
GLGeorgina Venetia Long
Georgina Venetia Long
DSDaniil Stroyakovskiy
Daniil Stroyakovskiy
HGHelen Gogas
Helen Gogas
ELEvgeny Levchenko
Evgeny Levchenko
FBF. De Braud
F. De Braud
KFKeith Flaherty
Keith Flaherty
Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition, as compared with BRAF inhibition alone, delays the emergence of resistance and reduces toxic effects in patients who have melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 423 previously untreated patients who had unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation to receive a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg orally twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg orally once daily) or dabrafenib and placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, response rate, response duration, and safety. A preplanned interim overall survival analysis was conducted. The median progression-free survival was 9.3 months in the dabrafenib–trametinib group and 8.8 months in the dabrafenib-only group (hazard ratio for progression or death in the dabrafenib–trametinib group, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.99; P=0.03). The overall response rate was 67% in the dabrafenib–trametinib group and 51% in the dabrafenib-only group (P=0.002). At 6 months, the interim overall survival rate was 93% with dabrafenib–trametinib and 85% with dabrafenib alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.94; P=0.02). However, a specified efficacy-stopping boundary (two-sided P=0.00028) was not crossed. Rates of adverse events were similar in the two groups, although more dose modifications occurred in the dabrafenib–trametinib group. The rate of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma was lower in the dabrafenib–trametinib group than in the dabrafenib-only group (2% vs. 9%), whereas pyrexia occurred in more patients (51% vs. 28%) and was more often severe (grade 3, 6% vs. 2%) in the dabrafenib–trametinib group. A combination of dabrafenib and trametinib, as compared with dabrafenib alone, improved the rate of progression-free survival in previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; Clinical Trials.gov number, NCT01584648.)

1 June 2007 in Cell Stem Cell
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
NMNimet Maherali
Nimet Maherali
RSRupa Sridharan
Rupa Sridharan
WXWei Xie
Wei Xie
Jochen UtikalJochen Utikal
Jochen Utikal
SESarah Eminli
Sarah Eminli
KHKonrad Hochedlinger
Konrad Hochedlinger

7 November 2008 in Science
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MSMatthias Stadtfeld
Matthias Stadtfeld
MNMasaki Nagaya
Masaki Nagaya
Jochen UtikalJochen Utikal
Jochen Utikal
GWGordon Weir
Gordon Weir
KHKonrad Hochedlinger
Konrad Hochedlinger
Pluripotent stem cells have been generated from mouse and human somatic cells by viral expression of the transcription factors Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc. A major limitation of this technology is the use of potentially harmful genome-integrating viruses. We generated mouse induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells from fibroblasts and liver cells by using nonintegrating adenoviruses transiently expressing Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc. These adenoviral iPS (adeno-iPS) cells show DNA demethylation characteristic of reprogrammed cells, express endogenous pluripotency genes, form teratomas, and contribute to multiple tissues, including the germ line, in chimeric mice. Our results provide strong evidence that insertional mutagenesis is not required for in vitro reprogramming. Adenoviral reprogramming may provide an improved method for generating and studying patient-specific stem cells and for comparing embryonic stem cells and iPS cells.