Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41696944›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of cancer2026

Single versus repeated intravenous oncolytic reovirus infusions: Implications for immune modulation and rationalised scheduling of therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Karen J Scott, Emma J West, Rebecca J Brownlie, Fay Ismail, Christy Ralph, Thomas Heineman, Matt Coffey, Alan A Melcher, Alison Taylor, Salvatore Papa and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Karen J ScottLeeds Institute of Medical Research at St. James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5790-9579
Emma J WestLeeds Institute of Medical Research at St. James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Rebecca J BrownlieLeeds Institute of Medical Research at St. James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Fay IsmailLeeds Institute of Medical Research at St. James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Christy RalphLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Thomas HeinemanOncolytics Biotech Inc., Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Matt CoffeyOncolytics Biotech Inc., Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Alan A MelcherThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Alison TaylorLeeds Institute of Medical Research at St. James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Salvatore PapaLeeds Institute of Medical Research at St. James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Adel SamsonLeeds Institute of Medical Research at St. James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 29039Guts UK DGO2019_02National Institute for Health and Care ResearchRosetrees Trust M894Yorkshire Cancer Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scheduling of oncolytic virus (OV) therapy has never been correlated with immunological/clinical response. In hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, where background liver is frequently chronically injured, repeated dosing may have deleterious implications, resulting in off-target immune-mediated damage, thereby tipping the balance between favourable clinical response and hepatotoxicity. Elucidation of the optimum dosing regime is paramount to ensure therapy, whilst limiting damage to background liver. We expand upon our experience in neoadjuvant OV therapy to compare immunological responses from single versus repeated doses of reovirus in cancer patients. The impact of OV on HCC outcomes was examined in vivo following a high-fat diet or induced liver fibrosis in the context of abnormal background liver. Furthermore, we assess the potential immune-mediated toxicity of single versus multiple virus infusions in combination with PD-1/PD-L1 blockade. Data indicate that a single dose of reovirus is equivalent or superior to repeated doses in achieving: (a) induction of an inflammatory cytokine/chemokine response; (b) peripheral blood immune cell activation; (c) migration of activated CD8+ CTLs. Repeated doses on consecutive days do not improve the amplitude of the immune response following virus infusion. Furthermore, without improving therapeutic efficacy, repeated viral dosing leads to an unwanted influx of activated T-cells into background liver, alongside elevated liver enzymes associated with aberrant liver function. A single dose of reovirus is as effective as multiple doses when combined with anti-PD-L1 therapy in limiting tumour growth and extending survival in vivo, whilst simultaneously avoiding undesirable toxicities in background liver, in the context of HCC.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularLiver NeoplasmsOncolytic VirotherapyOncolytic VirusesReoviridaeAnimalsCD8-Positive T-LymphocytesFemaleHumansInfusions, IntravenousMicehepatocellular carcinomahepatotoxicityintravenuous therapyPD‐L1reovirus

Identifiers

PMID41696944
PMCPMC13106913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.