Cargando…

Efficacy and safety of oncolytic viruses in advanced or metastatic cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Oncolytic viruses (OVs) have shown prospects in advanced and metastatic cancer, and many clinical trials have been carried out. To compare OV therapies comprehensively and provide a categorized profile and ranking of efficacy and safety, a network meta-analysis was conducted. METHODS: A...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xie, Ruiyang, Bi, Xingang, Shang, Bingqing, Zhou, Aiping, Shi, Hongzhe, Shou, Jianzhong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8325792/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34332591
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12985-021-01630-z
_version_ 1783731620052729856
author Xie, Ruiyang
Bi, Xingang
Shang, Bingqing
Zhou, Aiping
Shi, Hongzhe
Shou, Jianzhong
author_facet Xie, Ruiyang
Bi, Xingang
Shang, Bingqing
Zhou, Aiping
Shi, Hongzhe
Shou, Jianzhong
author_sort Xie, Ruiyang
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Oncolytic viruses (OVs) have shown prospects in advanced and metastatic cancer, and many clinical trials have been carried out. To compare OV therapies comprehensively and provide a categorized profile and ranking of efficacy and safety, a network meta-analysis was conducted. METHODS: A total of 5948 studies were screened and 13 randomized controlled trials with 1939 patients, of whom 1106 patients received OV therapies, comparing four OVs (NTX-010, pexastimogene devacirepvec (Pexa-Vec), talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), and pelareorep) were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Eligible studies reported at least one of the following clinical outcome measures: objective response rate (ORR) and grade ≥ 3 adverse events. RESULTS: Compared to systemic treatments alone, talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) (OR 7.00, 95% CI 1.90–26.00) and T-VEC plus systemic treatment (2.90, 0.80–11.00) showed better objective response rates (ORRs), whereas Pexa-Vec 1 * 10(9) pfu plus systemic treatment (0.91, 0.26–3.00) and pelareorep plus systemic treatment (1.10, 0.61–2.00) were found to be comparable. The grade ≥ 3 adverse event ranking of the treatments from worst to best was as follows: T-VEC (ranking probability 24%), Pexa-Vec 1 * 10(9) pfu plus systemic treatment (21%), Pexa-Vec 1 * 10(9) pfu (17%), T-VEC plus systemic treatment (13%), pelareorep plus systemic treatment (13%), systemic treatments (18%), Pexa-Vec 1 * 10(8) pfu (12%), and NTX-010 (20%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other oncolytic virus therapies for patients with advanced or metastatic cancer, T-VEC and T-VEC plus systemic treatment appear to provide the best ORR therapy in terms of monotherapy and combination respectively, but should be given with caution to grade ≥ 3 adverse events. Conversely, combining OVs with chemotherapy or target agents was demonstrated not to improve efficacy compared with chemotherapy or target agents alone. Combining OV therapies with immune-checkpoint inhibitors, instead of chemotherapy or target agents, tended to provide better ORRs without causing severe adverse events. This study will guide treatment choice and optimize future trial designs for investigations of advanced or metastatic cancer. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12985-021-01630-z.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8325792
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83257922021-08-02 Efficacy and safety of oncolytic viruses in advanced or metastatic cancer: a network meta-analysis Xie, Ruiyang Bi, Xingang Shang, Bingqing Zhou, Aiping Shi, Hongzhe Shou, Jianzhong Virol J Research BACKGROUND: Oncolytic viruses (OVs) have shown prospects in advanced and metastatic cancer, and many clinical trials have been carried out. To compare OV therapies comprehensively and provide a categorized profile and ranking of efficacy and safety, a network meta-analysis was conducted. METHODS: A total of 5948 studies were screened and 13 randomized controlled trials with 1939 patients, of whom 1106 patients received OV therapies, comparing four OVs (NTX-010, pexastimogene devacirepvec (Pexa-Vec), talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), and pelareorep) were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Eligible studies reported at least one of the following clinical outcome measures: objective response rate (ORR) and grade ≥ 3 adverse events. RESULTS: Compared to systemic treatments alone, talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) (OR 7.00, 95% CI 1.90–26.00) and T-VEC plus systemic treatment (2.90, 0.80–11.00) showed better objective response rates (ORRs), whereas Pexa-Vec 1 * 10(9) pfu plus systemic treatment (0.91, 0.26–3.00) and pelareorep plus systemic treatment (1.10, 0.61–2.00) were found to be comparable. The grade ≥ 3 adverse event ranking of the treatments from worst to best was as follows: T-VEC (ranking probability 24%), Pexa-Vec 1 * 10(9) pfu plus systemic treatment (21%), Pexa-Vec 1 * 10(9) pfu (17%), T-VEC plus systemic treatment (13%), pelareorep plus systemic treatment (13%), systemic treatments (18%), Pexa-Vec 1 * 10(8) pfu (12%), and NTX-010 (20%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other oncolytic virus therapies for patients with advanced or metastatic cancer, T-VEC and T-VEC plus systemic treatment appear to provide the best ORR therapy in terms of monotherapy and combination respectively, but should be given with caution to grade ≥ 3 adverse events. Conversely, combining OVs with chemotherapy or target agents was demonstrated not to improve efficacy compared with chemotherapy or target agents alone. Combining OV therapies with immune-checkpoint inhibitors, instead of chemotherapy or target agents, tended to provide better ORRs without causing severe adverse events. This study will guide treatment choice and optimize future trial designs for investigations of advanced or metastatic cancer. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12985-021-01630-z. BioMed Central 2021-07-31 /pmc/articles/PMC8325792/ /pubmed/34332591 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12985-021-01630-z Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Xie, Ruiyang
Bi, Xingang
Shang, Bingqing
Zhou, Aiping
Shi, Hongzhe
Shou, Jianzhong
Efficacy and safety of oncolytic viruses in advanced or metastatic cancer: a network meta-analysis
title Efficacy and safety of oncolytic viruses in advanced or metastatic cancer: a network meta-analysis
title_full Efficacy and safety of oncolytic viruses in advanced or metastatic cancer: a network meta-analysis
title_fullStr Efficacy and safety of oncolytic viruses in advanced or metastatic cancer: a network meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy and safety of oncolytic viruses in advanced or metastatic cancer: a network meta-analysis
title_short Efficacy and safety of oncolytic viruses in advanced or metastatic cancer: a network meta-analysis
title_sort efficacy and safety of oncolytic viruses in advanced or metastatic cancer: a network meta-analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8325792/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34332591
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12985-021-01630-z
work_keys_str_mv AT xieruiyang efficacyandsafetyofoncolyticvirusesinadvancedormetastaticcanceranetworkmetaanalysis
AT bixingang efficacyandsafetyofoncolyticvirusesinadvancedormetastaticcanceranetworkmetaanalysis
AT shangbingqing efficacyandsafetyofoncolyticvirusesinadvancedormetastaticcanceranetworkmetaanalysis
AT zhouaiping efficacyandsafetyofoncolyticvirusesinadvancedormetastaticcanceranetworkmetaanalysis
AT shihongzhe efficacyandsafetyofoncolyticvirusesinadvancedormetastaticcanceranetworkmetaanalysis
AT shoujianzhong efficacyandsafetyofoncolyticvirusesinadvancedormetastaticcanceranetworkmetaanalysis