A phase 1, single centre, open label, escalating dose study to assess the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of a therapeutic human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA vaccine (AMV002) for HPV-associated head and neck cancer (HNC).

BACKGROUND: We conducted a phase 1 dose escalation study (ACTRN12618000140257 registered on 30/01/2018) to evaluate the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of a therapeutic human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA vaccine (AMV002) in subjects previously treated for HPV-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). METHODS: Eligible subjects had to have no evidence of recurrent and/or metastatic disease at least 12 weeks following the completion of treatment. Three dosing cohorts each consisted of four subjects: group 1: 0.25 mg/dose, group 2: 1 mg/dose, group 3: 4 mg/dose. AMV002 was delivered intradermally on days 0, 28 and 56. Incidence and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) including local reaction at the injection site, and vaccination compliance were recorded. T cell and antibody responses to HPV16 E6 and E7 were measured by interferon gamma (IFN-γ) enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot (ELISpot) assay and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). RESULTS: All subjects completed the vaccination programme and experienced mild discomfort at the injection site(s). Pre-immunisation, cell-mediated responses to HPV16 E6 and E7 were evident in all subjects, and E7-specific antibodies were detected in 11 (91.7%), reflecting previous exposure to HPV. Post-vaccination, 10 of 12 (83.3%) subjects responded to one or more of the E6 and/or E7 peptide pools, while 2 (16.7%) did not show additional vaccine-induced cell-mediated responses. Vaccination resulted in a ≥ 4-fold increase in anti-HPV16 E7 antibody titre in one subject in group 3. CONCLUSIONS: AMV002 was well tolerated at all dose levels and resulted in enhanced specific immunity to virus-derived tumour-associated antigens in subjects previously treated for HPV-associated OPSCC.

Review of Oral Surgery Services and Training: a case of prescription without a diagnosis.

In the Review of Oral Surgery Services and Training, the Oral Surgery Review Group supported the development of the specialty of oral surgery and some of the arguments put forward to support it concerned finance and quality. We argue that their analyses of the present situation are flawed. The economic argument and issues concerning skill-mix are very simplistic, but more importantly, the rationale given for the increase in referrals did not explore the myriad of likely reasons why in any substantive detail. These reasons include shortcomings in undergraduate training and a poor NHS primary dental contract including the arrangements for charging patients. Before implementation, the policy makers should consider a wide range of available options to address the failings, and take a "whole system approach" before they embark on developing a specialty, which may cause problems that exceed those currently facing the system.