首页> 外文OA文献 >Efficacy and Safety of Oncolytic Viruses in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
【2h】

Efficacy and Safety of Oncolytic Viruses in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

机译:随机对照试验中溶血病毒的疗效和安全性:系统评价和荟萃分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Oncolytic virotherapy is a promising antitumor therapeutic strategy. It is based on the ability of viruses to selectively kill cancer cells and induce host antitumor immune responses. However, the clinical outcomes of oncolytic viruses (OVs) vary widely. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to illustrate the efficacy and safety of oncolytic viruses. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to January 31, 2020. The data for objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were independently extracted by two investigators from 11 studies that met the inclusion criteria. In subgroup analyses, the objective response rate benefit was observed in patients treated with oncolytic DNA viruses (odds ratio (OR) = 4.05; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.96–8.33; p = 0.0002), but not in those treated with oncolytic RNA viruses (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.66–1.52, p = 0.99). Moreover, the intratumoral injection arm yielded a statistically significant improvement (OR = 4.05, 95% CI: 1.96–8.33, p = 0.0002), but no such improvement was observed for the intravenous injection arm (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.66–1.52, p = 0.99). Among the five OVs investigated in RCTs, only talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) effectively prolonged the OS of patients (hazard ratio (HR), 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63–0.99; p = 0.04). None of the oncolytic virotherapies improved the PFS (HR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.85–1.19, p = 0.96). Notably, the pooled rate of severe AEs (grade ≥3) was higher for the oncolytic virotherapy group (39%) compared with the control group (27%) (risk difference (RD), 12%; risk ratio (RR), 1.44; 95% CI: 1.17–1.78; p = 0.0006). This review offers a reference for fundamental research and clinical treatment of oncolytic viruses. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to verify these results.
机译:溶瘤病毒治疗是一个有前途的抗肿瘤治疗策略。它基于病毒选择性地杀死癌细胞并诱导宿主抗肿瘤免疫应答的能力。然而,溶瘤病毒(OVS)的临床结果广泛变化。因此,我们进行了荟萃分析以说明溶瘤病毒的疗效和安全性。在2020年1月31日出版的随机对照试验(RCT)中搜索了Cochrane图书馆,PubMed和Embase数据库。客观反应率(ORR),总体存活(OS),无进展生存(PFS)的数据,不良事件(AES)由来自符合纳入标准的11项研究的两项研究人员独立提取。在亚组分析中,在溶溶解的DNA病毒治疗的患者中观察到客观反应率效益(差距(或)= 4.05; 95%置信区间(CI):1.96-8.33; P = 0.0002),但不在治疗的患者中溶瘤RNA病毒(或= 1.00,95%CI:0.66-1.52,P = 0.99)。此外,肿瘤内注射臂产生统计学上显着的改善(或= 4.05,95%CI:1.96-8.33,P = 0.0002),但对于静脉注射臂(或= 1.00,95%CI:0.66,没有观察到这种改进。 -1.52,p = 0.99)。在RCT中调查的五个OV中,只有塔硫代替烯·帕雷普(T-VEC)有效地延长了患者的OS(危险比(HR),0.79; 95%CI:0.63-0.99; P = 0.04)。 in氯粘性病毒疗法无改善PFS(HR = 1.00,95%CI:0.85-1.19,P = 0.96)。值得注意的是,与对照组(27%)(27%)(风险差异(RD),风险比(RR),1.44,1.44,1.44,1.44,1.44的风险差异(RR),1.44,1.44 ; 95%CI:1.17-1.78; P = 0.0006)。本次审查提供了对溶解病毒的基本研究和临床治疗的参考。需要进一步的随机对照试验来验证这些结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号