The intratumoral injection of talimogene laherparepvec, an oncolytic virus engineered to enhance immune recognition of cancer, resulted in a high response rate in combination with anti−PD-1 therapy. SUMMARYHere we report a phase 1b clinical trial testing the impact of oncolytic virotherapy with talimogene laherparepvec on cytotoxic T-cell infiltration and therapeutic efficacy of the anti−PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab. Twenty-one patients with advanced melanoma were treated with talimogene laherparepvec followed by combination therapy with pembrolizumab. Therapy was generally well-tolerated, with fatigue, fevers, and chills as the most common adverse events.
c r o l o~i r u l predictors r!f Africurr Anlrri~urr pnrrr~t-chilcl conimrrnication.s rcprrrilin~ rucilrl ivsires. DN~(I 1~.er~, ~Ieri~,ed,fi~rrr ~r r r~c -t~rred irrferviena n'irlr 157 /If,-iron Amcricnn pnrrnts with rhildretl 4 fu 14 ?ears ulcl. Three rontponer~r.s qf r(rciol sociulizufior~ 14,er-e esp1,~red: rnzclrirrg obofrr Afrir-on Arnericurl rultrrre (C~iltrrrul Socioli;nrior~), prepnrirll: rhil~lrc,!~ j i r r ~~xpo.iorer.s bvirh pr-ejrtllice (IJrrprrr(rtion ,for Hius), orrd lrr11niorirr~ out-~rorrp rrlisrrrist (IJrr~rnorio,r of Misrr~rsr). F i r l d i n~.~ imiicnrcd tlruf Culrrrrul Soriolizuriorr wrrs ~>r,tr~~.jr[qr~~rrr //riot U. LI . S Prepurutiorrfor Hius, which wrrs, in nrrrl. rrlorr.frcqrrerl1 thrrrr l'rr~moriorr r~f Mistrir.st. Messrt~es re~arrlirr,~ Pr~~rrtoriorr rflMisrrrr.sf urrd I'repirrrrrionfr,r Rio.~, btrr rtor Ctilrnml S~~cirrlizafiorr. itrcr~~u,se~l wiflr chil~/rerr ',r OR?, 1vit11 rnurked(l;fll.r~~~rcc.s b[,t>~'crn p~r f n t ,~ ($4-m 8-):~~or-oldr corrrpured to purrrrfs of 9-ro 14-yeor-ol11.s. 1)imensions / $ r~c i a l .socialirurion nJere al,so u.s,sociared wirh pnrrrrrs' reporrs of rirre-related .sorinlieotiorr /Ire!; r e c r i v~d in tlieir,finrilies of'r~riyirr. I:irrrrlls, pnrcnrs' pcrrrpriorr.~ qf rucilrl hius i r t rhc u,orkl~l(rce w~r e rr,s.~oriofed wirlr rrrcial ,sor.icrli;orior~, hrdr rcloriorrs were .sfro!rxer rmlon,y p(rrnrrs of 9-to 14-yerrr-o1d.s or rorr~l~nred ro pnrr,rrr.s of 4-rn S-or-old,s. Scht~lxe. R. Wilson. 1996), Knipht and colleagues' study o f cooperative irrientations among Mexican American children (Knight, Bernal, Gwza, Cola, & Ocampo, 1993). and Clii~cis (1994. 199.5) studies of child training ;lmong immigrant Cliinese k~niilies have each highlighted ways i n which ohserved piuenting practices areconsistent with cultural cnnccpts and with valued socialization outcomes. Undcrlvinn tliis line of research is the recornition that have altenipted tn outline strategies that parents use to help children undn-stand the meaning of their race or ethnicity within the I:~rgcrsociopolilicirl structure. Boykin and Toms ( I 9x5) argued. for exnmple, that ethnic minorrty parents must ncgotinte three sucialization agendas to ensure their chi1dren.s t~daptive functioning. These include: (;I) cultural srriali7;ltion (i.e.. promoting cultural cusa~nis, values,antl traditions): (h) niinnrity socialization (i.e., promoting awareness ofand preptu-ntinn tocops with minority status): and (c) milinstream sociillization ii.c., promoting goals and values of the dominant culture).Barnes (I'IXO) proposed that parents' emphmis on cultural knowledge and cultural pride helps prepare children to intemret and aim will1 preiudicc, disclimination.and neoa-, u -. .. grr~updiFlerencesins~ici;~lizationreflectdifferentsystenls tive grnup i n~:l :es emanating fn)m tlte outside world. ofcultu~d meaning>& wella~proups'idapt~ti~~nstospecific Spencer( 19x3) drnil:uly sugge\~ell that minority parents' ecolt~gical demmds and contexts lbr development. silence abriut racv 1e;lves thr.ir chil~iren ill-prepa...
Purpose We evaluated the combination of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase II study. To our knowledge, this was the first randomized trial to evaluate addition of an oncolytic virus to a checkpoint inhibitor. Methods Patients with unresectable stages IIIB to IV melanoma, with no more than one prior therapy if BRAF wild-type, no more than two prior therapies if BRAF mutant, measurable/injectable disease, and without symptomatic autoimmunity or clinically significant immunosuppression were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. Talimogene laherparepvec treatment began in week 1 (first dose, ≤ 4 mL × 10 plaque-forming units/mL; after 3 weeks, ≤ 4 mL × 10 plaque-forming units/mL every 2 weeks). Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; up to four doses) began week 1 in the ipilimumab alone arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was objective response rate evaluated by investigators per immune-related response criteria. Results One hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned to talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab (n = 98), or ipilimumab alone (n = 100). Thirty-eight patients (39%) in the combination arm and 18 patients (18%) in the ipilimumab arm had an objective response (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 5.5; P = .002). Responses were not limited to injected lesions; visceral lesion decreases were observed in 52% of patients in the combination arm and 23% of patients in the ipilimumab arm. Frequently occurring adverse events (AEs) included fatigue (combination, 59%; ipilimumab alone, 42%), chills (combination, 53%; ipilimumab alone, 3%), and diarrhea (combination, 42%; ipilimumab alone, 35%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was 45% and 35%, respectively. Three patients in the combination arm had fatal AEs; none were treatment related. Conclusion The study met its primary end point; the objective response rate was significantly higher with talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone. These data indicate that the combination has greater antitumor activity without additional safety concerns versus ipilimumab.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.