ArticleVirology journal2021
Efficacy and safety of oncolytic viruses in advanced or metastatic cancer: a network meta-analysis.
Article in Virology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of oncolytic virus combined with chemotherapy or immune checkpoint inhibitors in solid tumor patients: A meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Oncolytic viruses and neoantigen vaccines: opportunities and challenges in priming antitumour immunity.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Review
- A new strategy for melanoma treatment: an investigation of the clinical value of the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors and oncolytic viruses.Cancer cell international · 2025Review
- Efficacy, Safety and Predictive Biomarkers of Oncolytic Virus Therapy in Solid Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Vaccines · 2025Review
- Leveraging Microorganisms to Combat Skin Cancer.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Improving the efficacy of cancer immunotherapy by host-defence caerin 1.1 and 1.9 peptides.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Review
- Review
- Anti-cancer Virotherapy in Russia: Lessons from the Past, Current Challenges and Prospects for the Future.Current pharmaceutical biotechnology · 2023Review
- Effective intravenous delivery of adenovirus armed with TNFα and IL-2 improves anti-PD-1 checkpoint blockade in non-small cell lung cancer.Oncoimmunology · 2023Article
- Insights into immuno-oncology drug development landscape with focus on bone metastasis.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Modifying oncolytic virotherapy to overcome the barrier of the hypoxic tumor microenvironment. Where do we stand?Cancer cell international · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOncolytic viruses (OVs) have shown prospects in advanced and metastatic cancer, and many clinical trials have been carried out. To compare OV therapies comprehensively and provide a categorized profile and ranking of efficacy and safety, a network meta-analysis was conducted.
methodsA total of 5948 studies were screened and 13 randomized controlled trials with 1939 patients, of whom 1106 patients received OV therapies, comparing four OVs (NTX-010, pexastimogene devacirepvec (Pexa-Vec), talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), and pelareorep) were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Eligible studies reported at least one of the following clinical outcome measures: objective response rate (ORR) and grade ≥ 3 adverse events.
resultsCompared to systemic treatments alone, talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) (OR 7.00, 95% CI 1.90-26.00) and T-VEC plus systemic treatment (2.90, 0.80-11.00) showed better objective response rates (ORRs), whereas Pexa-Vec 1 * 10
conclusionsCompared with other oncolytic virus therapies for patients with advanced or metastatic cancer, T-VEC and T-VEC plus systemic treatment appear to provide the best ORR therapy in terms of monotherapy and combination respectively, but should be given with caution to grade ≥ 3 adverse events. Conversely, combining OVs with chemotherapy or target agents was demonstrated not to improve efficacy compared with chemotherapy or target agents alone. Combining OV therapies with immune-checkpoint inhibitors, instead of chemotherapy or target agents, tended to provide better ORRs without causing severe adverse events. This study will guide treatment choice and optimize future trial designs for investigations of advanced or metastatic cancer.
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.