ReviewVaccines2023
Oncolytic Viruses: An Inventory of Shedding Data from Clinical Trials and Elements for the Environmental Risk Assessment.
Review in Vaccines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging and Re-Emerging Viral Pathogens in Oncolytic Virotherapy: A Comprehensive Review.Reviews in medical virology · 2026Review
- Advances in oncolytic virus delivery strategies and challenges in clinical translation.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
- Development and Validation of a Rapid Titer Assay for the Oncolytic Virus oHSV2 Expressing a PD-L1/CD3 Bispecific Antibody.Viruses · 2026Article
- Recent advances in oncolytic virotherapy: insights from clinical trials and combination treatment strategies.Virology journal · 2026Review
- Review
- Exploring Neural Stem Cell Therapies as Innovative Treatments for Glioblastoma.Cellular and molecular neurobiology · 2025Review
- Oncolytic Herpes Simplex Virus Therapy: Latest Advances, Core Challenges, and Future Outlook.Vaccines · 2025Review
- Vaccines and Vaccination: Feature Papers.Vaccines · 2025Article
- Advances in the Drug Development and Quality Evaluation Principles of Oncolytic Herpes Simplex Virus.Viruses · 2025Review
- Opportunities, challenges, and future perspectives of oncolytic virus therapy for malignant melanoma.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- New hopes for the breast cancer treatment: perspectives on the oncolytic virus therapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Attenuated and/or genetically modified oncolytic viruses (OV) gain increasing interest as a promising approach for cancer therapy. Beside the assessment of subject safety, quality and efficacy aspects of medicinal products for human use, genetically modified viruses are also governed by EU regulatory frameworks requiring an environmental risk assessment (ERA). An important element to be assessed as part of the ERA is the incidence of exposure to OV of individuals, other than the trial subjects, and the environment. The evidence-based evaluation of shedding data is considered to be decisive in that context, as it may impact the OV capacity to be transmitted. This is particularly true for OV still able to (conditionally) replicate as opposed to replication-defective viral vectors commonly used in gene therapy or vaccination. To our knowledge, this article presents the most extensive and up-to-date review of shedding data reported with OV employed in clinics. Besides the identification of a topical need for improving the collection of shedding data, this article aims at providing an aid to the design of an appropriate shedding study, thereby relying on and further complementing principles described in existing guidelines issued by European and international institutions.
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.