Oncolytic virus combined with traditional treatment versus traditional treatment alone in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis.

Abstract

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. 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 meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis were performed. 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. 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.