Oncolytic virus combined with traditional treatment versus traditional treatment alone in patients with cancer: a meta-a
- PDF / 3,394,067 Bytes
- 13 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 98 Downloads / 153 Views
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Oncolytic virus combined with traditional treatment versus traditional treatment alone in patients with cancer: a meta‑analysis Yuwei Li1,2,3 · Yinan Shen1,2,3 · Tianyu Tang1,2,3 · Zengwei Tang1,2,3 · Wei Song1,2,3 · Zifan Yang1,2,3 · Xiaozhen Zhang1,2,3 · Meng Wang1,2,3 · Xueli Bai1,2,3 · Tingbo Liang1,2,3 Received: 29 March 2020 / Accepted: 13 July 2020 © Japan Society of Clinical Oncology 2020
Abstract Background Oncolytic virus therapy has shown benefits for multiple cancers, while limitations remain for traditional treatment. However, few studies have concentrated on comparing whether oncolytic virus combined with traditional treatment is better than traditional treatment alone in patients with cancer. We conducted a meta-analysis of the curative effect and safety of oncolytic virus combination therapy. Methods We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases comprehensively for articles comparing oncolytic virus combined with traditional treatment to traditional treatment alone in patients with cancer. A metaanalysis and trial sequential analysis were performed. Results A total of 12 studies involving 1494 patients (combination therapy group, 820 patients; traditional treatment group, 674 patients) were included in the study. Compared with traditional treatment alone, combination therapy was significantly associated with high objective response rate [odds ratio (OR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01–1.82, p = 0.04]. There were no significant differences for other outcomes such as 1- and 2-year survival rate, and 4- and 12-month progression-free survival rate. Combination therapy was significantly associated with high incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse effects (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.06–2.05, p = 0.02) and high incidence of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.13–2.43, p = 0.01). There were no significant differences for other grade ≥ 3 adverse effects, e.g., gastrointestinal adverse effects, influenza-like illness, fatigue, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Conclusion Despite partially increased toxicity, the combination therapy improves the effectiveness of cancer treatment. However, high-quality, large-scale studies are needed to evaluate its effectiveness and safety. Keywords Oncolytic virus · Cancer · Traditional treatment · Meta-analysis · Trial sequential analysis
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-020-01760-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. * Xueli Bai [email protected] * Tingbo Liang [email protected] 1
Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 79 Qingchun Road, Hangzhou 310006, Zhejiang Province, China
2
Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Pancreatic Disease, Hangzhou, China
3
Innovation Center for the Study of Pancreatic Diseases, Hangzhou, China
Abbreviations OR Odds ratio ORR Objective response rate OV Oncolytic virus RIS Requi
Data Loading...
