Lau Poyee, Liang Long, Chen Xiang, Zhang Jianglin, Liu Hong
The First Affiliated Hospital (Shenzhen People's Hospital), Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, 518055, China.
Department of Dermatology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, China.
EClinicalMedicine. 2025 Jul 19;86:103362. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103362. eCollection 2025 Aug.
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.
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.
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 = 0.040), virus classifications (adjusted = 0.0027), administration routes (adjusted = 0.0080), and patient age groups (adjusted = 0.00080).
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 - or -based strategies. The therapeutic efficacy of oncolytic virotherapy varies notably by multiple factors.
None.
溶瘤病毒疗法(OV)是一种创新的免疫治疗策略。全面了解溶瘤病毒对于推进研究和临床实践至关重要。本分析旨在评估溶瘤病毒疗法在癌症患者中的临床疗效。
我们进行了单臂、成对和贝叶斯网络荟萃分析,纳入了从数据库建立至2025年4月30日通过PubMed、Medline、Embase和Cochrane图书馆检索到的临床试验。主要终点包括所有级别的不良事件(AE)和≥3级不良事件、客观缓解率(ORR)和疾病控制率(DCR)。效应量测量包括风险比(RRs)或比值比(ORs)以及95%置信区间(CIs)或可信区间(CrIs)。进行亚组分析以评估结果,并应用荟萃回归来评估预后变量的影响。本研究已在国际前瞻性注册系统(PROSPERO)注册,注册号为CRD42022306458。
在筛选的1976项研究中,186项涉及6979名参与者的临床试验符合纳入标准。与溶瘤病毒疗法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)、发烧(3.32%,2.64 - 4.07)和寒战(1.65%,1.39 - 1.82),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对比免疫疗法,DCR 2.45,95% CI 1.60 - 3.76)和联合方案(OV加化疗对比OV,DCR 8.53,95% CI 1.97 - 37.03)提高了治疗效果,但与传统治疗相比,它们具有更高的毒性风险(OV对比免疫疗法,所有级别AE 2.07,95% CI 1.75 - 2.44)。值得注意的是,涉及化疗(OV加化疗对比化疗,所有级别AE 1.10,95% CI 1.02 - 1.18)或放疗(OV加放疗对比放疗,所有级别AE 1.53,95% CI 1.27 - 1.84)的联合疗法显著增加了不良事件风险。相反,溶瘤病毒疗法联合免疫疗法显示出更有利的安全性(OV加免疫疗法对比OV加化疗,严重AE 0.32,95% CrI 0.15 - 0.66)和临床益处(OV加免疫疗法对比OV加化疗,DCR 0.08,95% CrI 0.02 - 0.33)。不同治疗策略(校正 = 0.040)、病毒分类(校正 = 0.0027)、给药途径(校正 = 0.0080)和患者年龄组(校正 = 0.00080)的疗效差异显著。
本分析为溶瘤病毒疗法在癌症治疗中的耐受性和疗效提供了有力证据。溶瘤病毒疗法作为单药治疗和联合方案均显示出巨大潜力,在疗效和安全性之间取得了良好平衡。病毒疗法与免疫疗法联合显示出更有利的安全性,特别是在涉及 - 或 - 为基础的策略的方案中。溶瘤病毒疗法的治疗效果因多种因素而有显著差异。
无。