Comparative safety and efficacy of oncolytic virotherapy for the treatment of individuals with malignancies: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

IF 10 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
EClinicalMedicine Pub Date : 2025-07-19 eCollection Date: 2025-08-01 DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103362
Poyee Lau, Long Liang, Xiang Chen, Jianglin Zhang, Hong Liu
{"title":"Comparative safety and efficacy of oncolytic virotherapy for the treatment of individuals with malignancies: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and Bayesian network meta-analysis.","authors":"Poyee Lau, Long Liang, Xiang Chen, Jianglin Zhang, Hong Liu","doi":"10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>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 <i>p</i> = 0.040), virus classifications (adjusted <i>p</i> = 0.0027), administration routes (adjusted <i>p</i> = 0.0080), and patient age groups (adjusted <i>p</i> = 0.00080).</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>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 <i>Reoviridae</i>- or <i>Poxviridae</i>-based strategies. The therapeutic efficacy of oncolytic virotherapy varies notably by multiple factors.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>None.</p>","PeriodicalId":11393,"journal":{"name":"EClinicalMedicine","volume":"86 ","pages":"103362"},"PeriodicalIF":10.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12301812/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EClinicalMedicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103362","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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 p = 0.040), virus classifications (adjusted p = 0.0027), administration routes (adjusted p = 0.0080), and patient age groups (adjusted p = 0.00080).

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 Reoviridae- or Poxviridae-based strategies. The therapeutic efficacy of oncolytic virotherapy varies notably by multiple factors.

Funding: None.

溶瘤病毒疗法治疗恶性肿瘤患者的安全性和有效性比较:系统综述、荟萃分析和贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。
背景:溶瘤病毒治疗(OV)是一种创新的免疫治疗策略。全面了解溶瘤病毒对推进研究和临床实践至关重要。本分析旨在评价溶瘤病毒治疗在癌症患者中的临床效果。方法:我们进行了单臂、两两和贝叶斯网络meta分析,纳入了PubMed、Medline、Embase和Cochrane图书馆从数据库建立到2025年4月30日的临床试验。主要终点包括所有级别和≥3级不良事件(ae)、客观缓解率(ORR)和疾病控制率(DCR)。效应量测量包括95%可信区间(ci)或可信区间(CrIs)的风险比(rr)或优势比(ORs)。亚组分析评估结果,meta回归评估预后变量的影响。本研究已在普洛斯彼罗注册,注册号为CRD42022306458。结果:在筛选的1976项研究中,186项临床试验有6979名受试者符合纳入标准。与溶瘤病毒治疗相关的最常见不良事件为疲劳(1.98%,1.71-2.28)、发热(2.16%,1.69-2.69)、发热(3.32%,2.64-4.07)和发冷(1.65%,1.39-1.82),其中中性粒细胞减少(1.07%,0.67-1.55)和淋巴细胞减少(0.71%,0.51-0.94)是主要的严重不良事件。虽然溶瘤病毒单药治疗(OV vs免疫治疗,DCR 2.45, 95% CI 1.60-3.76)和联合治疗(OV +化疗vs OV, DCR 8.53, 95% CI 1.97-37.03)提高了治疗效果,但与常规治疗(OV vs免疫治疗,全级AE 2.07, 95% CI 1.75-2.44)相比,它们具有更高的毒性风险。值得注意的是,包括化疗(OV +化疗vs化疗,全级别AE 1.10, 95% CI 1.02-1.18)或放疗(OV +放疗vs放疗,全级别AE 1.53, 95% CI 1.27-1.84)的联合治疗显著增加不良事件风险。相反,溶瘤病毒治疗联合免疫治疗显示出更有利的安全性(OV +免疫治疗vs OV +化疗,严重AE 0.32, 95% CrI 0.15-0.66)和临床获益(OV +免疫治疗vs OV +化疗,DCR 0.08, 95% CrI 0.02-0.33)。不同治疗策略(调整后p = 0.040)、病毒分类(调整后p = 0.0027)、给药途径(调整后p = 0.0080)和患者年龄组(调整后p = 0.00080)的疗效差异显著。解释:该分析为溶瘤病毒疗法在癌症治疗中的耐受性和有效性提供了强有力的证据。溶瘤病毒治疗显示出巨大的潜力,作为单一疗法和联合方案,提供了良好的平衡的有效性和安全性。病毒治疗与免疫治疗配对显示出更有利的安全性,特别是在涉及呼肠孤病毒或痘病毒的方案中。溶瘤病毒治疗的疗效因多种因素而有显著差异。资金:没有。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
EClinicalMedicine
EClinicalMedicine Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
18.90
自引率
1.30%
发文量
506
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: eClinicalMedicine is a gold open-access clinical journal designed to support frontline health professionals in addressing the complex and rapid health transitions affecting societies globally. The journal aims to assist practitioners in overcoming healthcare challenges across diverse communities, spanning diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and health promotion. Integrating disciplines from various specialties and life stages, it seeks to enhance health systems as fundamental institutions within societies. With a forward-thinking approach, eClinicalMedicine aims to redefine the future of healthcare.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信