ReviewOncolytic virotherapy2017
The importance of imaging strategies for pre-clinical and clinical in vivo distribution of oncolytic viruses.
Review in Oncolytic virotherapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- In Vivo Tracking Modalities for Oncolytic Reovirus: Principles, Clinical Applications, and Translational Integration.Molecular imaging and biology · 2026Review
- Nonclinical pharmacokinetics and biodistribution of VSV-GP using methods to decouple input drug disposition and viral replication.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2023Article
- A brief review of reporter gene imaging in oncolytic virotherapy and gene therapy.Molecular therapy oncolytics · 2021Review
- NanoBiT System and Hydrofurimazine for Optimized Detection of Viral Infection in Mice-A Novel in Vivo Imaging Platform.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- Virotheranostics, a double-barreled viral gun pointed toward cancer; ready to shoot?Cancer cell international · 2020Review
- Reporter Transgenes for Monitoring the Antitumor Efficacy of Recombinant Oncolytic Viruses.Acta naturaeArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oncolytic viruses (OVs) are an emergent and unique therapy for cancer patients. Similar to chemo- and radiation therapy, OV can lyse (kill) cancer cell directly. In general, the advantages of OVs over other treatments are primarily: a higher safety profile (as shown by less adverse effects), ability to replicate, transgene(s) delivery, and stimulation of a host's immune system against cancer. The latter has prompted successful use of OVs with other immunotherapeutic strategies in a synergistic manner. In spite of extended testing in pre-clinical and clinical setting, using biologically derived therapeutics like virus always raises potential concerns about safety (replication at non-intended locations) and bio-availability of the product. Recent advent in in vivo imaging techniques dramatically improves the convenience of use, quality of pictures, and amount of information acquired. Easy assessing of safety/localization of the biotherapeutics like OVs became a new potential weapon in the physician's arsenal to improve treatment outcome. Given that OVs are typically replicating, in vivo imaging can also track virus replication and persistence as well as precisely mapping tumor tissues presence. This review discusses the importance of imaging in vivo in evaluating OV efficacy, as well as currently available tools and techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.