Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 26, 2025

Paramyxoviruses for Tumor-targeted Immunomodulation: Design and Evaluation Ex Vivo
Published on: January 7, 2019
Efficacy and safety of oncolytic viruses in advanced or metastatic cancer: a network meta-analysis
Ruiyang Xie1, Xingang Bi1, Bingqing Shang1
1Department of Urology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Panjiayuan Nanli #17, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China.
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 * 109 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 * 109 pfu plus systemic treatment (21%), Pexa-Vec 1 * 109 pfu (17%), T-VEC plus systemic treatment (13%), pelareorep plus systemic treatment (13%), systemic treatments (18%), Pexa-Vec 1 * 108 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.
Insights
Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) shows superior objective response rates in advanced cancer, but caution is advised due to adverse events. Combining oncolytic viruses with immune-checkpoint inhibitors may improve efficacy without severe side effects.
Area of Science:
- Oncology
- Virology
- Immunotherapy
Background:
- Oncolytic viruses (OVs) demonstrate potential for treating advanced and metastatic cancers.
- Numerous clinical trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of OV therapies.
Purpose of the Study:
- To conduct a network meta-analysis comparing oncolytic virus therapies.
- To provide a categorized profile and ranking of efficacy and safety for different OVs.
Main Methods:
- A Bayesian network meta-analysis included 13 randomized controlled trials with 1939 patients.
- Four OVs (NTX-010, Pexa-Vec, T-VEC, pelareorep) were compared based on objective response rate (ORR) and grade ≥3 adverse events.
Main Results:
- Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) and T-VEC plus systemic treatment showed significantly better ORRs compared to systemic treatments alone.
- Pexa-Vec and pelareorep combined with systemic treatment demonstrated comparable ORRs to systemic treatments alone.
- Adverse event rankings indicated T-VEC and Pexa-Vec combinations had higher probabilities of severe adverse events.
Conclusions:
- T-VEC monotherapy and combination therapy offer the best ORR for advanced/metastatic cancer but require careful monitoring for adverse events.
- Combining OVs with chemotherapy or targeted agents did not improve efficacy over standard treatments.
- Combining OVs with immune-checkpoint inhibitors showed promise for better ORRs without severe adverse events, guiding future treatment choices and trial designs.
Related Concept Videos
Cancer Therapies
However, cancer treatments can pose several challenges, as therapies used to kill cancer cells are generally also toxic to normal cells. Moreover, cancer cells mutate rapidly and can develop resistance to chemical agents or radiation therapy. Besides, all types of cancer cells may not respond to the same therapy. Some cancer cells respond to one...
Treatment Resistant Cancers
Tumor Immunotherapy
Targeted Cancer Therapies
There are several types of targeted therapies against...
Rous Sarcoma Virus (RSV) and Cancer
RSV is a retrovirus that contains two copies of a plus-strand RNA genome. Its genome consists of four main open...
Mechanisms of Retrovirus-induced Cancers

