ReviewPharmaceutics2026
Chemokine-Armed Oncolytic Viruses: Engineering Immune Cell Trafficking to Transform the Tumor Microenvironment.
Review in Pharmaceutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most patients with solid tumors do not respond to immune checkpoint blockade, and inadequate T cell infiltration of the tumor parenchyma is the dominant mechanism of primary resistance. Oncolytic viruses address this problem by a distinct route: they replicate selectively within tumor cells, produce immunogenic cell death, and convert infected cells into local sources of any encoded transgene. Most armed designs to date have carried cytokine or checkpoint-antibody payloads, and chemokines have attracted comparatively little attention despite bearing directly on the trafficking bottleneck. This review synthesizes the preclinical literature on chemokine-armed oncolytic viruses across three receptor axes: CXCR3 (CXCL9, CXCL10, CXCL11), CCR5 (CCL5/RANTES), and CCR7 (CCL19). The accumulated evidence indicates that therapeutic outcome depends less on the chemokine payload itself than on the interaction between payload and viral backbone. CXCL11 outperforms its sister CXCR3 ligands not through intrinsic potency but because it is non-redundant with the endogenous chemokines induced by vesicular stomatitis virus and vaccinia, and because it largely escapes proteolytic cleavage by dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4). CCL5 has shown the most consistent activity in dual-payload designs that pair chemotaxis with a T cell survival cytokine such as IL-15. CCL19, which addresses lymphoid organization rather than effector recruitment, rests on a single published construct. One evidence gap is central: no head-to-head comparison of chemokine payloads within a single viral platform has been published. We therefore propose a translational decision framework that aligns chemokine selection with the immune contexture of the target tumor.
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.