Background Talimogene laherparepvec is an oncolytic immunotherapy approved in the US, Europe, Australia and Switzerland. We report the final planned analysis of OPTiM, a randomized open-label phase III trial in patients with unresectable stage IIIB–IVM1c melanoma. Methods Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive intratumoral talimogene laherparepvec or subcutaneous recombinant GM-CSF. In addition to overall survival (OS), durable response rate (DRR), objective response rate (ORR), complete responses (CR), and safety are also reported. All final analyses are considered to be descriptive and treatment responses were assessed by the investigators. Results Of 436 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 295 were allocated to talimogene laherparepvec and 141 to GM-CSF. Median follow-up in the final OS analysis was 49 months. Median OS was 23.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.5–29.6) and 18.9 months (95% CI, 16.0–23.7) in the talimogene laherparepvec and GM-CSF arms, respectively (unstratified hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62–1.00; p = 0.0494 [descriptive]). DRR was 19.0 and 1.4% (unadjusted odds ratio, 16.6; 95% CI, 4.0–69.2; p < 0.0001); ORR was 31.5 and 6.4%. Fifty (16.9%) and 1 (0.7%) patient in the talimogene laherparepvec and GM-CSF arms, respectively, achieved CR. In talimogene laherparepvec-treated patients, median time to CR was 8.6 months; median CR duration was not reached. Among patients with a CR, 88.5% were estimated to survive at a 5-year landmark analysis. Talimogene laherparepvec efficacy was more pronounced in stage IIIB–IVM1a melanoma as already described in the primary analysis. The safety reporting was consistent with the primary OPTiM analysis. Conclusions In this final planned OPTiM analysis, talimogene laherparepvec continued to result in improved longer-term efficacy versus GM-CSF and remained well tolerated. The final analysis also confirms that talimogene laherparepvec was associated with durable CRs that were associated with prolonged survival. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00769704 . Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40425-019-0623-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Primary and recurrent giant cell tumor of bone is typically benign; however, rarely giant cell tumor of bone can undergo malignant transformation. Malignancy in giant cell tumor of bone may be primary (adjacent to benign giant cell tumor of bone at first diagnosis) or secondary (at the site of previously treated giant cell tumor of bone). Malignant giant cell tumor of bone has a poor prognosis; it is important to distinguish malignant from benign lesions to facilitate appropriate management. The true incidence of malignant giant cell tumor of bone is not known, probably owing to inaccurate diagnosis and inconsistent nomenclature. We have analyzed current data to provide a robust estimate of the incidence of malignancy in giant cell tumor of bone. Methods: A literature search was performed to source published reports of primary and secondary cases of malignant giant cell tumor of bone. Studies that reported a denominator were used to estimate the incidence of malignancy. Results: We identified 4 large series of patients with malignant giant cell tumor of bone that provided data on 2315 patients with giant cell tumor of bone. Across these studies, the cumulative incidence of malignancy was 4.0%; the cumulative incidence of primary malignancy was 1.6% compared with 2.4% for secondary malignancy. Our analyses confirmed that most malignant giant cell tumor of bone is secondary and occurs following radiation. In addition, data from 8 small series showed that 4.8% of patients with giant cell tumor of bone who received radiation therapy developed secondary malignancy. Conclusions: Malignant giant cell tumor of bone is rare, and its identification is hindered by a lack of clear diagnostic criteria. For optimal care of patients with giant cell tumor of bone, we recommend: comprehensive histologic sampling to ensure accurate diagnoses; watchful follow-up, particularly for patients treated with radiation; and timely treatment of local recurrence.

Summary Background Effective treatment for metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD) remains a substantial unmet medical need. In this study we investigated the safety and efficacy of atidarsagene autotemcel (arsa-cel) in patients with MLD. Methods This study is an integrated analysis of results from a prospective, non-randomised, phase 1/2 clinical study and expanded-access frameworks. 29 paediatric patients with pre-symptomatic or early-symptomatic early-onset MLD with biochemical and molecular confirmation of diagnosis were treated with arsa-cel, a gene therapy containing an autologous haematopoietic stem and progenitor cell (HSPC) population transduced ex vivo with a lentiviral vector encoding human arylsulfatase A (ARSA) cDNA, and compared with an untreated natural history (NHx) cohort of 31 patients with early-onset MLD, matched by age and disease subtype. Patients were treated and followed up at Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. The coprimary efficacy endpoints were an improvement of more than 10% in total gross motor function measure score at 2 years after treatment in treated patients compared with controls, and change from baseline of total peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) ARSA activity at 2 years after treatment compared with values before treatment. This phase 1/2 study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01560182 . Findings At the time of analyses, 26 patients treated with arsa-cel were alive with median follow-up of 3·16 years (range 0·64–7·51). Two patients died due to disease progression and one due to a sudden event deemed unlikely to be related to treatment. After busulfan conditioning, all arsa-cel treated patients showed sustained multilineage engraftment of genetically modified HSPCs. ARSA activity in PBMCs was significantly increased above baseline 2 years after treatment by a mean 18·7-fold (95% CI 8·3–42·2; p<0·0001) in patients with the late-infantile variant and 5·7-fold (2·6–12·4; p<0·0001) in patients with the early-juvenile variant. Mean differences in total scores for gross motor function measure between treated patients and age-matched and disease subtype-matched NHx patients 2 years after treatment were significant for both patients with late-infantile MLD (66% [95% CI 48·9–82·3]) and early-juvenile MLD (42% [12·3–71·8]). Most treated patients progressively acquired motor skills within the predicted range of healthy children or had stabilised motor performance (maintaining the ability to walk). Further, most displayed normal cognitive development and prevention or delay of central and peripheral demyelination and brain atrophy throughout follow-up; treatment benefits were particularly apparent in patients treated before symptom onset. The infusion was well tolerated and there was no evidence of abnormal clonal proliferation or replication-competent lentivirus. All patients had at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event; most were...

ObjectivesTalimogene laherparepvec is the first oncolytic immunotherapy to receive approval in Europe, the USA and Australia. In the randomized, open-label Phase III OPTiM trial (NCT00769704), talimogene laherparepvec significantly improved durable response rate (DRR) versus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in 436 patients with unresectable stage IIIB–IVM1c melanoma. The median overall survival (OS) was longer versus GM-CSF in patients with earlier-stage melanoma (IIIB–IVM1a). Here, we report a detailed subgroup analysis of the OPTiM study in patients with IIIB–IVM1a disease.Patients and methodsThe patients were randomized (2:1 ratio) to intralesional talimogene laherparepvec or subcutaneous GM-CSF and were evaluated for DRR, overall response rate (ORR), OS, safety, benefit–risk and numbers needed to treat. Descriptive statistics were used for subgroup comparisons.ResultsAmong 249 evaluated patients with stage IIIB–IVM1a melanoma, DRR was higher with talimogene laherparepvec compared with GM-CSF (25.2% versus 1.2%; P<0.0001). ORR was also higher in the talimogene laherparepvec arm (40.5% versus 2.3%; P<0.0001), and 27 patients in the talimogene laherparepvec arm had a complete response, compared with none in GM-CSF-treated patients. The incidence rates of exposure-adjusted adverse events (AE) and serious AEs were similar with both treatments.ConclusionThe subgroup of patients with stage IIIB, IIIC and IVM1a melanoma (57.1% of the OPTiM intent-to-treat population) derived greater benefit in DRR and ORR from talimogene laherparepvec compared with GM-CSF. Talimogene laherparepvec was well tolerated.

SummarySynthetic repellents based on di-ethyl 3-methyl benzamide (DEET) are a popular method of obtaining protection from mosquitoes and yet clear evidence for a protective effect against malaria has hitherto never been convincingly demonstrated. A household randomized trial was undertaken among a study population of 127 families (25%) in an Afghan refugee village in Pakistan to compare the efficacy of repellent soap (Mosbar TM containing 20% DEET and 0.5% permethrin) vs. a placebo lotion. Cases of falciparum and vivax malaria were detected by passive case detection at the camp's clinic. At the end of the 6 month trial 3.7% (23 of 618) of individuals in the Mosbar group had presented with one or more episodes of falciparum malaria compared with 8.9% (47 of 530) of the placebo group (odds ratio 0.44, 95% CI 0.25-0.76). 16.7% of the Mosbar group (103 of 618) presented with vivax malaria compared with 11.7% (62 of 530) of the placebo group, and thus no effect was shown against vivax malaria (odds ratio 1.29, 95% CI 0.86-1.94). A considerable proportion of individuals (22%) had presented with vivax malaria during the 7 months leading up to the trial and thus any intervention effect would be partially masked by relapsed infections. The distribution of mosquitoes among households was broadly similar between Mosbar and placebo groups. The repellent was popularly received and very few side-effects were reported. There is a case for giving repellents more prominence in public health as a preventive measure in regions where vectors bite in the early evening or in emergency situations such as epidemics or newly established refugee camps.