Talk:Talimogene laherparepvec

First oncolytic virus approved in the West
Corrected article to reflect that Imlygic is not the first 'gene therapy' approved in the US. According to the FDA, Kymriah is the first (link to article). Imlygic is, however, the first oncolytic virus approved in the US. - Biologist122 (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Biased language
eg 'impressive', 'This demonstrated once again' - Reads like press release. - Rod57 (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tried to remove the worst of it. - Rod57 (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Melanoma trial Needs more on ethics of not comparing with standard care
History shows some content removed. - Rod57 (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/24b5634e-f2e4-11e1-8577-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2idyuAroh Amgen’s TVEC vaccine shows promise in regional melanoma, greater benefit and applicability in question. FT 30 Aug 2013 ] says "Atypical trial design : A second trial investigator also questioned the Phase III trial design, noting that GM-CSF as a comparator is atypical. Dacarbazine is typically the comparator arm in melanoma trials, he noted. No one would treat anyone with stage IV metastatic melanoma with GM-CSF, but it was chosen to show that any benefit was not just due to GM-CSF, the second investigator said. The second investigator reported he found the trial difficult to enroll for this reason. " - Rod57 (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Melanoma trial Needs median overall survival
So we can compare with other treatments. - Rod57 (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For the phase III Optim trial we now have : "The median overall survival (OS) for the Imlygic-treated patients treated was 41.1 months, versus 21.5 months in those given GM-CSF.[4]" - Rod57 (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Cost $65,000 per course
FDA approval Oct 2015, says " Amgen anticipates the average cost of IMLYGIC therapy to be approximately $65,000. Given that IMLYGIC represents a novel and first-in-class oncolytic viral therapy, Amgen expects variability of IMLYGIC dosing from patient to patient. Therefore, Amgen intends to work with the healthcare community to implement a program that helps limit the average cost of IMLYGIC therapy to $65,000 for eligible participating institutions." - Rod57 (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sentence in the lead
User:Graham Beards, about this dif, where you removed "As of 2016 there was not evidence that it extends the life of people with melanoma, not that it prevents metastasis. " with an edit note: the sentence did not make any sense and is not supported by sources" which I reverted and fixed:

which I reverted and fixed: " As of 2016 there was no evidence that it extends the life of people with melanoma, not that it prevents metastasis. " (yes it said "not" instead of "no")


 * Unclear to me what doesn't make sense - the drug has not been shown to extend life nor prevent metastases. That is true as of now.  There are further trials ongoing and this may change.   So - what specifically doesn't make sense?
 * About support, yes in the LEAD the fukuhura ref was not correct for this statement
 * in the body was already supported by the US label which says "IMLYGIC has not been shown to improve overall survival or have an effect on visceral metastases"; the EMA label also says: "Due to the exploratory nature of the analysis and based on the current evidence, it has not been established that Imlygic is associated with an effect on overall survival." I fixed that in the lead.

If you object to the lead we need to fix the body too, so please clarify what the issues are, exactly. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The grammar was and still is incorrect.
 * "As of 2016 there was no evidence that it extends the life of people with melanoma, not that it prevents metastasis." Presumably this means "...or that it prevents metastasis". The original sentence did not make sense, and your revision only partly resolved this.
 * Also, this clause is poorly written "it is intended to also spur an immune response, but as of 2016 it was not clear that is happening." How about, "It was also expected to stimulate an immune response, but as of 2016, there is no evidence of this." Graham Beards (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fixed the typo - "not" was meant to be "nor".  yes that suggestion is more or less fine but i reckon that mostly the company "expected" - it was designed to do that, for sure.  i guess I will implement.  your approach here is bizarrely antagonistic; it is not hard to improve content collaboratively. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not accuse me of antagonism. See WP:BRD, which is exactly what we have done. Also, "not" is followed by "or". Graham Beards (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You very obviously came here from the Tourette's talk page, wondering how I edit, and approached it antagonistically instead of collaboratively. The problems here were easily and obviously fixable through editing but you felt POINTY so acted that way.   You want to conduct yourself like that, that is your choice.  Defending it only makes it uglier.  I am moving on in any case as it seems that your issues have been addressed. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a virologist and this article has been on my watchlist since around October 2013. Graham Beards (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * PS Since you are getting personal, I already knew how you edit from the cock up you made at Antimicrobial resistance. I did not have to, nor did I, come here for any other reason than to improve the article. Graham Beards (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * so you let this article remain in its shitty, promotional state that whole time - claiming that the GM-CSF stuff actually works with a big picture even showing that - and you pick a stupid argument about some obvious typos instead of just fixing them. OK Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * (1) Before now, any edits by me other than reverting vandalism would have caused a conflict of interest. (2) Of the thousands of pages I have on my watchlist, this is of low importance. Anyhow, have you read the NICE Guidelines? . Graham Beards (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

New evidence supporting effect - needs to be added

 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6075852/
 * https://academic.oup.com/annonc/article/29/suppl_8/mdy289.002/5140626

This needs to be incorporated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.39.66 (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)