ArticleInternational journal of cancer2026
Single versus repeated intravenous oncolytic reovirus infusions: Implications for immune modulation and rationalised scheduling of therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Optimizing oncolytic reovirus therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma: A single dose enhances immune modulation and tumor delivery.Molecular therapy. Oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
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
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.