ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025
Comparative safety and efficacy of oncolytic virotherapy for the treatment of individuals with malignancies: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Real-World Effectiveness of SGLT2 Inhibitors Across Heart Failure Phenotypes: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of diabetes research · 2026Pooled it
- Beyond cold to hot: oncolytic virotherapy as the next cornerstone of immuno-oncology.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Advances in oncolytic virus delivery strategies and challenges in clinical translation.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
- Oncolytic virus M1 reinvigorates CD8Cellular & molecular immunology · 2026Article
- Clinical and translational progress in oncolytic virotherapy for pediatric CNS tumors.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Review
- Oncolytic viruses in lung cancer: mechanisms of action and research progress.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Viral warriors: Unlocking the immune system's potential with oncolytic viruses in cancer immunotherapy.Molecular therapy. Oncology · 2025Review
- Research progress on recombinant NDV in cancer therapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Oncolytic virus therapy in the elderly: immune frailty, challenges, and perspectives.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Oncolytic virotherapy (OV) is an innovative immunotherapy strategy. A comprehensive understanding of oncolytic viruses is essential for advancing research and clinical practice. This analysis aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of oncolytic virotherapy in cancer patients. Methods: We performed single-arm, pairwise, and Bayesian network meta-analyses, incorporating clinical trials identified through PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from database inception to April 30, 2025. Primary endpoints included all-grade and grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). Effect size measures included risk ratios (RRs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or credible intervals (CrIs). Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess outcomes, and meta-regression was applied to evaluate the influence of prognostic variables. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42022306458. Findings: Of 1976 studies screened, 186 clinical trials with 6979 participants met the inclusion criteria. The most common adverse events associated with oncolytic virotherapy were fatigue (1.98%, 1.71-2.28), pyrexia (2.16%, 1.69-2.69), fever (3.32%, 2.64-4.07), and chills (1.65%, 1.39-1.82), with neutropenia (1.07%, 0.67-1.55) and lymphocytopenia (0.71%, 0.51-0.94) being the predominant severe adverse events. While oncolytic virus monotherapy (OV vs immunotherapy, DCR 2.45, 95% CI 1.60-3.76) and combination regimens (OV plus chemotherapy vs OV, DCR 8.53, 95% CI, 1.97-37.03) enhanced therapeutic efficacy, they presented higher toxicity risks compared to conventional treatments (OV vs immunotherapy, all-grade AE 2.07, 95% CI 1.75-2.44). Notably, combination therapies involving chemotherapy (OV plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy, all-grade AE 1.10, 95% CI 1.02-1.18) or radiotherapy (OV plus radiotherapy vs radiotherapy, all-grade AE 1.53, 95% CI 1.27-1.84) significantly increase adverse event risks. Conversely, oncolytic virotherapy combined with immunotherapy showed a more favorable safety profile (OV plus immunotherapy vs OV plus chemotherapy, severe AE 0.32, 95% CrI 0.15-0.66) and clinical benefits (OV plus immunotherapy vs OV plus chemotherapy, DCR 0.08, 95% CrI 0.02-0.33). Efficacy varied significantly across treatment strategies (adjusted Interpretation: This analysis provides robust evidence on the tolerability and efficacy of oncolytic virotherapy in cancer treatment. Oncolytic virotherapy demonstrates significant potential as both monotherapy and in combination regimens, offering a favorable balance of efficacy and safety. Virotherapy paired with immunotherapy exhibits a more favorable safety profile, particularly in regimens involving Funding: None.
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.