This page provides an independent statistical analysis and educational interpretation of publicly reported results. ClinicalTrials.gov provides the official trial registry record. Numerical trial results on this page are restricted to the results posted in the ClinicalTrials.gov record; calculations added by Clinical Biostats are labelled as such.
1. Trial at a Glance
This page covers the registry results for Study of Safety and Efficacy of Talimogene Laherparepvec With Cisplatin and Radiotherapy for Treatment of Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer (NCT01161498), a randomized phase 3 study. The primary outcome is 2-year Event-free Survival.
| Feature | Registry value |
|---|---|
| ClinicalTrials.gov identifier | NCT01161498 |
| Phase | Phase 3 |
| Condition | Squamous Cell Carcinoma, Head and Neck Cancer |
| Allocation | Randomized |
| Design model | Parallel |
| Masking | None (open label) |
| Enrollment | 5 |
| Arms in the primary outcome | n/a |
| Lead sponsor | BioVex Limited |
| Results posted | Yes |
2. Clinical Question
Population
Previously untreated patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. The registry lists squamous cell carcinoma and head and neck cancer among the conditions.
Intervention
Talimogene laherparepvec added to cisplatin and radiation. The registry describes an initial talimogene laherparepvec dose on Day 0 and subsequent doses on Days 21, 42, and 63, alongside concurrent cisplatin and radiation.
Comparator
Cisplatin and radiation without talimogene laherparepvec. Cisplatin was administered intravenously on Days 0, 21, and 42, with radiation administered concurrently.
Primary question
Whether adding talimogene laherparepvec changes 2-year event-free survival, defined as time from randomization until relapse, disease progression, a second primary, or death from any cause. The endpoint was not analyzed.
This is the clinical question implied by the randomized, parallel-group comparison. The trial also set out to examine safety and risks, as well as whether the combination could destroy tumours compared with chemoradiation alone. The registry lists clinical objective response, metabolic complete response, pathologic complete response, time to locoregional failure, time to distant failure, time to any failure, overall survival, and disease-specific survival as secondary outcomes.
The clinical question is distinct from the answer the posted results can support. The record reports termination after enrollment of 5 participants and states that the primary endpoint was not analyzed. It therefore does not provide a comparative estimate for event-free survival or a basis for judging the size or precision of a difference between the groups. The reported safety counts describe the small enrolled groups, but they do not establish a comparative safety profile.
3. Trial Design
The registry describes a phase 3 randomized trial with a parallel-group design and no masking. It lists BioVex Limited as the sponsor. The trial status is terminated, with enrollment of 5 participants. The registry states that termination occurred in the first year and that the primary endpoint was not analyzed. The reason for termination is not reported in the registry record.
The comparison was between radiation and cisplatin alone and the same treatment combined with talimogene laherparepvec. In the radiation/cisplatin group, cisplatin was given intravenously at 100 mg/m² on Days 0, 21, and 42. Radiation was administered concurrently with cisplatin in 35 fractions over a 7-week period.
For the talimogene laherparepvec group, the registry describes a first dose of up to 8 mL total volume, up to 4 mL per lesion, at 10⁶ plaque-forming units (PFU)/mL on Day 0, injected into all injectable affected nodes. Subsequent doses were listed as up to 8 mL total volume, up to 4 mL per lesion, at 10⁸ PFU/mL on Days 21, 42, and 63. The available arm description is incomplete after this schedule, so further administration details are not reported in the registry record.
Randomization is intended to allocate participants to comparison groups in a way that supports a fair comparison, but the record does not report the randomization method or the intended allocation ratio. Masking was none, meaning the study was not masked according to the registry. The record does not explain whether this design choice was expected to affect assessment or treatment. It also does not report eligibility criteria in detail, the recruitment process, or reasons for the small enrollment.
4. Participant Flow and Accounting
The registry reports how participants moved through each stage of the study. All counts below are exactly as posted; missing counts are not inferred from other stages.
Overall Study
| Stage | Radiation/Cisplatin | Talimogene Laherparepvec + Radiation/Cisplatin |
|---|---|---|
| STARTED | 3 | 2 |
| COMPLETED | 3 | 1 |
| NOT COMPLETED | 0 | 1 |
Reasons for not completing this period:
| Reason | Radiation/Cisplatin | Talimogene Laherparepvec + Radiation/Cisplatin |
|---|---|---|
| Disease Progression | 0 | 1 |
5. Baseline Characteristics
The table reproduces the baseline characteristics posted in the registry, which describe the participants analysed at baseline and help show whether the randomized groups were comparable.
| Characteristic | Unit | Radiation/Cisplatin | Talimogene Laherparepvec + Radiation/Cisplatin | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participants analysed | 3 | 2 | 5 | |
| Age, Categorical: <=18 years | Participants | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Age, Categorical: Between 18 and 65 years | Participants | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| Age, Categorical: >=65 years | Participants | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Sex: Female, Male: Female | Participants | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Sex: Female, Male: Male | Participants | 2 | 2 | 4 |
6. Primary Endpoint
The registry lists the primary outcome as 2-year Event-free Survival, measured over 2 years.
| Element | Registry entry |
|---|---|
| Result type | N/A |
| Measure of spread | not applicable |
| Unit | not stated |
| Endpoint classification | not reduced to a single comparison |
The primary endpoint was 2-year event-free survival. The registry defines event-free survival as the time from randomization until the first evidence of relapse, disease progression, or death from any cause. Progression could be local, regional, metastatic, or a second primary. The stated timeframe for the endpoint is 2 years.
In general, an event-free survival endpoint combines clinically important events into a time-to-event measure. It can account for both whether an event occurs and how long participants remain free of an event. Because it includes several types of events, its interpretation depends on the specific event definition; here, the registry explicitly includes relapse, several forms of progression, a second primary, and death from any cause.
The registry states that this endpoint was not analyzed because the trial was terminated with only 5 participants enrolled and ended in the first year. Thus, no event-free survival estimate, comparison between groups, or uncertainty interval is reported in the registry record. The endpoint definition describes what the trial intended to measure, not an observed treatment effect. No endpoint results should be inferred from the fact that the study was designed to measure event-free survival.
7. Why No Re-analysis Is Shown
8. Statistical Interpretation
The central statistical fact is that the trial enrolled 5 participants and was terminated before its primary endpoint was analyzed. The registry explicitly says that 2-year event-free survival was not analyzed. Consequently, the posted results do not provide an estimate of event-free survival in either group, a between-group contrast, or a measure of precision such as a confidence interval. There is no reported primary-outcome result from which to assess the direction or magnitude of a treatment difference.
The record lists 10 outcome measures and no analyses. Secondary outcomes include response measures, times to different types of failure, overall survival, and disease-specific survival. Their listing indicates what outcomes were included in the record, but it does not establish that they were measured or analyzed. Outcome results beyond the safety counts are not reported in the registry record.
The adverse-event information gives small group counts. In the radiation/cisplatin group, 3 participants were at risk for serious adverse events and 2 were affected; for other adverse events, 3 were at risk and 3 were affected. In the talimogene laherparepvec plus radiation/cisplatin group, 2 participants were at risk for serious adverse events and 2 were affected; for other adverse events, 2 were at risk and 2 were affected. These counts are descriptive. With so few participants, they cannot support a stable comparison of event frequency between groups, and the registry does not report a statistical comparison of safety.
The serious adverse-event terms listed include lung infection, urinary tract infection, hyperglycaemia, malignant neoplasm progression, acute renal failure, and pleural effusion, each reported as 50.0%. These percentages should be read as registry-reported summaries, not as evidence that each event is attributable to a particular treatment. The record does not provide enough detail to determine whether the listed terms occurred in the same participants or to interpret their comparative frequency.
In general, estimates from small studies are sensitive to the outcomes of individual participants and can be imprecise. That limitation is especially consequential when the primary endpoint was not analyzed at all: there is no estimate whose uncertainty can be quantified. The registry does not report an explanation for termination, an analysis plan, or a statistical rationale for enrollment. The results therefore document a trial that did not produce a primary efficacy analysis, rather than a definitive positive or negative comparison.
9. Statistical Methods Explained
The trial is identified as randomized, parallel-group, and unmasked. In general, random allocation is used to reduce systematic differences between groups at assignment. It does not guarantee that groups will be similar in every characteristic, particularly when enrollment is very small. A parallel-group design compares participants assigned to different treatment strategies over the course of the study. The registry does not report the randomization procedure, allocation concealment, or intended allocation ratio, so those features cannot be assessed from the record.
No masking was recorded. In general, masking means keeping treatment assignment unknown to participants, clinicians, or outcome assessors, depending on the study design. Lack of masking can matter when decisions or outcome assessments involve judgment. Some outcomes, such as death, are less dependent on subjective assessment than others, but the event-free survival definition includes relapse and progression as well as death. The registry does not describe outcome adjudication or safeguards for unmasked assessment. This does not establish that bias occurred; it identifies information needed to evaluate the risk.
The primary endpoint is time to the first qualifying event. In general, a time-to-event analysis uses the time at which an event occurs and can also incorporate participants whose event has not been observed by the end of follow-up. Such participants are often treated as censored at their last known follow-up, but the handling of censoring depends on the analysis plan. The registry provides no event-free survival analysis and does not report censoring rules, follow-up summaries, or the statistical method intended for this endpoint. It is therefore not possible to describe a fitted survival curve, a hazard ratio, or another treatment-effect estimate as a trial result.
A confidence interval, in general, describes the precision of an estimated quantity under the assumptions of the statistical method. It does not replace the estimate itself, and a wide interval would indicate substantial uncertainty. No confidence interval for the primary outcome is reported because that outcome was not analyzed. Likewise, the record reports no primary-outcome p-value. Neither a treatment effect nor its precision can be recovered from the enrollment count or the adverse-event summaries.
In general, a p-value evaluates how compatible data are with a specified statistical model and null hypothesis; it is not the probability that a treatment works or that the null hypothesis is true. A p-value also does not convey the clinical size of an effect. There are no reported analyses from which to interpret such a test for the primary endpoint. No statistical analysis plan, choice of primary comparison method, or interim-analysis procedure is reported in the registry record.
The record lists a sample-size planning illustration based on an observed effect, with a two-sided significance level of 0.05, equal allocation between arms, and a normal approximation. The effect to detect is described as a stated fraction of the observed effect. For time-to-event outcomes, the planning quantity is the total number of events; for other outcomes, it is participants per arm. These are planning illustrations, not observed power or evidence that a planned sample size was achieved. The registry does not report the trial's own sample-size justification. Because no primary endpoint analysis is reported, the record also does not provide a primary event-free survival estimate on which to base a clinical interpretation.
In general, over-dispersion refers to data varying more than a statistical model expects. It can affect standard errors and tests when the chosen model assumes less variability than the data contain. The registry record does not report a count-model analysis or an over-dispersion assessment, and this concept should not be mistaken for a method used in this trial. More broadly, the record does not identify a fitted model for the primary outcome, covariate adjustment, handling of missing observations, or any sensitivity analyses.
The most important method for interpreting the posted results is therefore to distinguish design from analysis. Randomization and the planned endpoint describe how the trial was intended to compare the groups. They do not substitute for observed endpoint data or an analysis. For this terminated study, the registry states that the primary endpoint was not analyzed and records no analyses. Statistical conclusions about comparative event-free survival cannot be drawn from the design description alone.
10. Multiplicity, Missing Data and Analysis Populations
The registry lists multiple secondary outcomes in addition to the primary 2-year event-free survival endpoint. In general, when several outcomes or comparisons are tested, the chance of obtaining at least one apparently notable result can increase unless the analysis plan accounts for multiplicity. Common approaches include defining a hierarchy of tests or adjusting the interpretation of multiple tests. The registry does not report a multiplicity strategy, outcome hierarchy, or adjustment method.
The record contains no analyses, and the primary endpoint was not analyzed. It therefore does not report a set of outcome tests requiring interpretation as confirmatory or exploratory results. A note associated with the outcome information says that an outcome with several categories or time points was not reduced to one comparison. No multiplicity-adjusted result is reported. This does not support reconstructing which comparisons might have been planned or performed.
Missing-data handling is not reported in the registry record. The record does not describe the amount or pattern of missing outcome information, rules for censoring, imputation, or sensitivity analyses. These details matter in general because missingness can affect what population an estimate describes and how robust it is to assumptions about unavailable observations.
The analysis populations are also not reported in the registry record. In general, intention-to-treat, per-protocol, and safety populations answer somewhat different questions and may include participants according to different rules. The registry does not say which population was used for any endpoint, and no endpoint analysis is recorded. It also does not report interim analyses or a statistical analysis plan. These absences limit assessment of prespecification and analytic decisions; they should not be filled by assuming a particular protocol.
11. Safety Results
The registry reports serious adverse events as affected participants divided by participants at risk.
| Arm | Participants with serious adverse events | Participants at risk | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Radiation/Cisplatin | 2 | 3 | 66.7% |
| Talimogene Laherparepvec + Radiation/Cisplatin | 2 | 2 | 100.0% |
Other (non-serious) adverse events
Participants with at least one non-serious event at or above the registry's 5% reporting threshold.
| Arm | Participants affected of at risk |
|---|---|
| Radiation/Cisplatin | 3 of 3 |
| Talimogene Laherparepvec + Radiation/Cisplatin | 2 of 2 |
Most frequent serious adverse event terms
| Event term | Organ system | Radiation/Cisplatin | Talimogene Laherparepvec + Radiation/Cisplatin |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mouth haemorrhage | Gastrointestinal disorders | 1 of 3 | 0 of 2 |
| Lung infection | Infections and infestations | 0 of 3 | 1 of 2 |
| Urinary tract infection | Infections and infestations | 0 of 3 | 1 of 2 |
| Dehydration | Metabolism and nutrition disorders | 1 of 3 | 0 of 2 |
| Hyperglycaemia | Metabolism and nutrition disorders | 0 of 3 | 1 of 2 |
| Malignant neoplasm progression | Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) | 0 of 3 | 1 of 2 |
| Renal failure acute | Renal and urinary disorders | 0 of 3 | 1 of 2 |
| Pleural effusion | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | 0 of 3 | 1 of 2 |
Most frequent non-serious adverse event terms
| Event term | Organ system | Radiation/Cisplatin | Talimogene Laherparepvec + Radiation/Cisplatin |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stomatitis | Gastrointestinal disorders | 3 of 3 | 1 of 2 |
| Diarrhoea | Gastrointestinal disorders | 1 of 3 | 2 of 2 |
| Nausea | Gastrointestinal disorders | 1 of 3 | 2 of 2 |
| Salivary duct inflammation | Gastrointestinal disorders | 1 of 3 | 2 of 2 |
| Vomiting | Gastrointestinal disorders | 2 of 3 | 1 of 2 |
| Anaemia | Blood and lymphatic system disorders | 2 of 3 | 0 of 2 |
| Abdominal pain | Gastrointestinal disorders | 0 of 3 | 2 of 2 |
| Constipation | Gastrointestinal disorders | 1 of 3 | 1 of 2 |
| Fatigue | General disorders | 1 of 3 | 1 of 2 |
| Weight decreased | Investigations | 1 of 3 | 1 of 2 |
Serious events with the highest arm-level rate: lung infection (50.0%), urinary tract infection (50.0%), hyperglycaemia (50.0%), malignant neoplasm progression (50.0%), renal failure acute (50.0%).
The serious adverse-event counts are reported separately by treatment group. For radiation/cisplatin, 3 participants were at risk and 2 were affected. For talimogene laherparepvec plus radiation/cisplatin, 2 were at risk and 2 were affected. For other adverse events, the radiation/cisplatin group had 3 at risk and 3 affected, while the combination group had 2 at risk and 2 affected. The registry lists deaths as null for both groups; deaths are not reported in the registry record.
The serious adverse-event terms listed are lung infection, urinary tract infection, hyperglycaemia, malignant neoplasm progression, acute renal failure, and pleural effusion. Each term is reported as 50.0%. The registry does not give further detail alongside these percentages about event timing, recurrence, severity grades, or overlap among terms. The percentages should not be converted into participant counts without that information.
These data are descriptive and based on very small groups. In general, a few events can have a substantial influence on a summary when few participants are observed. The counts do not establish that an event was caused by treatment, and they do not provide a reliable comparison of safety between groups. The registry does not report a statistical test or adjusted safety analysis.
12. What the Result Does, and Does Not, Mean
The registry record establishes that a randomized phase 3 trial was conducted to compare cisplatin and radiation with the same regimen plus talimogene laherparepvec in previously untreated patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. It also establishes that the trial was terminated after 5 participants were enrolled and that the primary 2-year event-free survival endpoint was not analyzed.
Those details do not establish whether adding talimogene laherparepvec improved, worsened, or left event-free survival unchanged. There is no reported estimate for either group, no between-group contrast, and no confidence interval. The absence of an analyzed primary outcome is not evidence of no effect; it means the registry record does not supply an estimate with which to assess the effect.
The safety information documents reported counts and serious-event terms among the enrolled participants. It does not establish a comparative risk, attribute events to treatment, or support a general conclusion about safety. The small numbers and lack of reported comparative analysis make such interpretations particularly uncertain. The listed percentages are registry summaries and should not be treated as precise estimates of event frequency.
The trial's design and its results are different kinds of evidence. Randomization describes the intended basis for a fair comparison, and the primary endpoint definition describes what the investigators intended to measure. Neither replaces a completed outcome analysis. The secondary outcomes named in the record likewise do not constitute results merely because they were listed.
In general, a trial can inform a treatment question only to the extent that relevant outcomes were observed and analyzed with interpretable methods. Here, the record supports a description of the planned comparison, the limited enrollment, the early termination, and the reported adverse-event counts. It does not support a conclusion about comparative efficacy or a broad characterization of treatment effects. The reason the trial ended and the statistical plan are not reported in the registry record.
13. Why This Trial Matters Statistically
This trial matters statistically because it illustrates the difference between a randomized design and an informative treatment-effect estimate. Randomization can support a fair comparison when data are collected and analyzed, but randomization alone does not produce an estimate. In this record, the trial enrolled 5 participants, was terminated in the first year, and did not analyze its primary endpoint.
The primary endpoint was a time-to-event measure with a broad event definition, including relapse, progression, a second primary, and death from any cause. Such an endpoint can combine several clinically important outcomes, but interpreting it requires outcome follow-up and a specified analysis. The registry reports neither a primary event-free survival result nor the analytic details needed to assess one.
The safety counts also illustrate why denominators matter. The reported groups were very small, so the counts provide only a narrow description of the participants recorded. They cannot support a stable estimate of how often adverse events would occur in a larger population or a dependable comparison between treatment strategies. The reported serious-event terms and percentages should be read in that limited context.
Finally, this record highlights the importance of transparent reporting about termination, analysis populations, missing data, multiplicity, and prespecified methods. Those details are not reported in the registry record. Their absence limits readers' ability to understand why the trial stopped and how any planned analyses would have been conducted. The statistical lesson is not a verdict on either treatment strategy; it is that an intended comparison without an analyzed primary outcome cannot answer the primary comparative question.
14. Limitations
- The posted summary statistics are the only data these results rest on; patient-level data, full protocols and statistical analysis plans are not available.
- Recalculated results are simple, unadjusted calculations from posted summaries. They do not replace the sponsor's prespecified analysis.
The foremost limitation is that enrollment was 5 and the primary 2-year event-free survival endpoint was not analyzed. The registry states that the study was terminated in the first year, so the planned two-year endpoint could not be reported as an analyzed result. No comparative efficacy estimate or uncertainty interval is available.
The reason for termination is not reported in the registry record. The record also does not report a detailed statistical analysis plan, the randomization procedure, intended allocation ratio, analysis populations, missing-data handling, or interim-analysis procedures. Without these details, readers cannot assess whether the planned methods were prespecified or how participants and outcomes would have been handled analytically.
The listed arm description for talimogene laherparepvec is incomplete after the dose schedule. Further administration details are not reported in the registry record. The record does not report detailed eligibility criteria, participant characteristics, follow-up information, or results for the named secondary outcomes. Although adverse-event counts and serious-event terms are listed, the record does not provide enough detail to establish event attribution, timing, recurrence, or overlap among terms.
The very small enrolled groups constrain interpretation of the safety counts. They are not a basis for estimating event rates precisely or comparing risks reliably. More generally, the record documents a terminated trial with limited posted results, not a completed analysis of its planned clinical question.
15. Related Tutorials
16. Related Statistical Calculators
17. Sources
- ClinicalTrials.gov: Study of Safety and Efficacy of Talimogene Laherparepvec With Cisplatin and Radiotherapy for Treatment of Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer — NCT01161498.
- Registry record last updated 2016-02-08; status last verified 2016-01.
- Results first posted 2015-12-17.
- Data retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov on 2026-11-09.
- Group sizes, means, event counts and sponsor-reported p-values are reproduced as posted. Effect estimates, confidence intervals and p-values not attributed to the sponsor are independently calculated from the posted summary statistics.
Continue through the Clinical Biostats statistical pathway
Use this trial's endpoint as a starting point for deeper study of effect measures, confidence intervals, and sample-size planning.
18. Record Summary
This phase 3, randomized, parallel-group, unmasked trial compared cisplatin and radiation with or without talimogene laherparepvec in previously untreated patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. The primary endpoint was 2-year event-free survival, defined as time from randomization to relapse, progression, a second primary, or death from any cause.
The trial was terminated after enrollment of 5 participants. The registry states that the primary endpoint was not analyzed because the study ended in the first year. It records no analyses. Adverse-event counts are reported for both groups, along with six serious adverse-event terms, each listed at 50.0%. These data do not provide a comparative efficacy estimate or a reliable comparative safety analysis. The reason for termination, statistical analysis plan, and analysis populations are not reported in the registry record.