Bernard Huynh

Institut Curie, Lutetia Parisorum, Île-de-France, France

Are you Bernard Huynh?

Claim your profile

Publications (6)13.58 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of TG4001 in patients with human papillomavirus (HPV) 16-related cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2/3 at 6 and 12 months. In all, 21 patients with HPV 16-related CIN 2/3 received 3 weekly subcutaneous injections of TG4001. Regression of the CIN 2/3 lesion and the clearance of HPV 16 infection were monitored by cytology, colposcopy, and HPV DNA/messenger RNA (mRNA) detection. A clinical response was defined by no CIN 2/3 found on conization, or no conization performed because not suspected at cytology or colposcopy. Ten patients (48%) were evaluated as clinical responders at month 6. Nine patients experienced an improvement of their HPV 16 infection, by mRNA ± DNA eradication. HPV 16 mRNA clearance was associated with CIN 2/3 cytologic and colposcopic regression in 7 of 10 patients. At month 12, 7 of 8 patients without conization reported neither suspicion of CIN 2/3 relapse nor HPV 16 infection. The remaining patient was lost to follow-up. These promising data warrant further development of TG4001 in CIN 2/3 treatment.
    American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 02/2011; 204(2):169.e1-8. DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2010.09.020 · 3.97 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: TG4001 (MVA-HPV-IL2) is based on the Modified Virus of Ankara (MVA) strain expressing E6 and E7 of Human Papillomavirus type 16 (HPV16) and human Interleukin-2 (IL-2). The efficacy of two different doses was tested in a randomized, phase II trial, conducted in patients with high-grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia (CIN2/3) related to HPV16.Methods: Patients received 3 weekly SC injections of TG4001 at the dose of 5 × 105 or 5 × 107 pfu. Conization was performed 6 weeks after the first injection. Twenty-eight evaluable patients are planned to be recruited, 14 in each treatment-arm. Complete regression of the lesions, confirmed by histology, is the primary efficacy parameter. Other endpoints include (1) partial regression of the lesions (in extent and depth, e.g. CIN1) (2) viral clearance (no HPV16 found by PCR at week 6 on conization material) (3) immuno-histo-chemistry analysis performed on conisation material, compared to baseline biopsy (4) HPV-specific cellular and humoral response and humoral response to the vaccine and (5) safety.Results: Recruitment is ongoing, since 2 patients are missing to complete the low-dose arm. Twenty-nine patients with HPV16 CIN2/3 have been already treated, 13 patients in the low-dose group and 16 patients in the high-dose group. Two patients, one in each group, are not considered as evaluable for efficacy since they did not receive the 3 planned injections because of grade 2 injection site reaction (1 patient) or pregnancy (1 patient). No patients with multiple infection entered the protocol (no HPV18, HPV31 or HPV33 found by PCR on baseline biopsy). Histological (by pathologist of the investigational site), viral and safety data are available for these 29 patients, all other parameters will be analyzed at the end of the study. TG4001 was well tolerated since almost all patients reported mild/moderate injection site reaction but this was the cause of withdrawal from the study for only the first patient treated in this study. In terms of efficacy, five patients treated in the high-dose treatment-arm reported either very limited histological signs of CIN2/3 and/or viral clearance on conization material. No change occurred between baseline and week 6 in the group of patients who received the low-dose, whereas, per protocol, these two patient-populations were managed according to the same procedures. This difference reaches statistical significance.Conclusion: Encouraging signs of early efficacy were reported when TG4001 is administered at the dose of 5 × 107 pfu in patients with HPV16 CIN2/3. Further development with delay of the conization is warranted to explore the true clinical benefit of this therapeutic vaccination.
    Molecular Therapy 01/2004; 9. DOI:10.1016/j.ymthe.2004.06.193 · 6.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Herpes simplex virus (HSV-2) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections produce brain damage in the newborn, and human papillomavirus (HPV) plays a role in cervical carcinogenesis. To assess the frequency of herpes virus and HPV in semen and its role in transmission, semen from 111 male partners of women with histologically-detected genital HPV infection was analysed for HSV, CMV and HPV infection. We used cell culture to detect HSV and CMV, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for HPV. Virological findings in the sperm were correlated to the presence or absence of HPV-associated genital lesions and to the viral type. Viral cultures yielded HSV-2 DNA in 9% and CMV DNA in 6.3% of cases. No correlation was established with a history of clinically apparent infection for HSV. HPV-DNA was detected in 23.4% of semen by PCR techniques: in 48% of subjects with urethral lesions, in 22% of patients with penile lesions, in 2% of patients without HPV-associated lesions. HPV-DNA type 16 was detected in 3.6% of cases. Patients with a positive HPV semen sample and penile or urethral lesions had the same HPV type detected in the two specimens. The study shows a high detection of clinically inapparent HSV and CMV, but does not confirm high HPV prevalence in semen from men without detectable lesions. Our study also suggests that the mechanism for semen contamination by HPV is the exfoliation of infected cells from urethral lesions during semen ejaculation, and probably, by abrasion from penile lesions. This could result in the contamination of semen used in assisted reproductive technology.
    International Journal of STD & AIDS 09/2002; 13(8):547-50. DOI:10.1258/095646202760159666 · 1.04 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare the accuracy of thin-layer cytology with Autocyte PREP (TriPath Imaging Inc., Burlington, North Carolina, U.S.A.) with conventional smears in 500 women undergoing cervical cone biopsy. The study was performed among 500 consecutive women presenting for cone biopsy for high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) on biopsy in 350 (70%) and discrepant cytology/colpohistology in 150 (30%). Before performing a cone biopsy, two cervical samples were collected for conventional smears and thin-layer cytologic slides, with randomization of the order. Conventional smears were stained and diagnosed at Pasteur Cerba, while thin-layer cytologic slides were processed at a local TriPath office (Meylan, France) and sent in a masked fashion for screening at Pasteur Cerba. Any slides initially read as normal were reviewed again and reported without knowledge of the other cytologic or cone biopsy data. The final cytologic diagnoses for the two methods were compared with histopathology of the cone biopsy. The conventional smear was unsatisfactory in 58 (11.6%) of cases, while there were 4 (0.8%) unsatisfactory thin-layer cytologic slides (P < .001). Endocervical cells were missing from 31 (6.2%) of conventional smears and 34 (6.8%) of thin-layer cytologic slides. For the pooled data, sensitivities of conventional smear and thin layer for detecting high grade CIN (0.82% and 0.86%, respectively) were similar as were specificities (0.40% and 0.43%, respectively). When first samples were compared, the sensitivities of the conventional smear and thin layer for high grade CIN were 0.79% and 0.89%, respectively (P = .02), with corresponding specificities of 0.41% and 0.36% (P < .01). When controlled for sample order, the sensitivity of thin-layer cytology for detecting high grade CIN was significantly higher than that of conventional smears in patients with previous abnormal cytology, but at the expense of specificity.
    Acta cytologica 01/2001; 45(4):519-24. DOI:10.1159/000327858 · 1.56 Impact Factor
  • Gynécologie Obstétrique & Fertilité 10/2000; 28(9):667-71. · 0.58 Impact Factor