Leveraging the immune system to thwart cancer is not a novel strategy and has been explored via cancer vaccines and use of immunomodulators like interferons. However, it was not until the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors that we realized the true potential of immunotherapy in combating cancer. Oncolytic viruses are one such immunotherapeutic tool that is currently being explored in cancer therapeutics. We present the most comprehensive systematic review of all oncolytic viruses in Phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials published to date. We performed a systematic review of all published clinical trials indexed in PubMed that utilized oncolytic viruses. Trials were reviewed for type of oncolytic virus used, method of administration, study design, disease type, primary outcome, and relevant adverse effects. A total of 120 trials were found; 86 trials were available for our review. Included were 60 phase I trials, five phase I/II combination trials, 19 phase II trials, and two phase III clinical trials. Oncolytic viruses are feverously being evaluated in oncology with over 30 different types of oncolytic viruses being explored either as a single agent or in combination with other antitumor agents. To date, only one oncolytic virus therapy has received an FDA approval but advances in bioengineering techniques and our understanding of immunomodulation to heighten oncolytic virus replication and improve tumor kill raises optimism for its future drug development.
Background. Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are commonly treated with multimodality therapy. The combination of capecitabine and temozolomide (CAPTEM) has been suggested as a treatment option for patients with metastatic NETs. We present our experience with CAPTEM. Methods. Data on NET patients who were placed on CAPTEM and received at least one cycle were obtained from a Velos eResearch database. Response rate was calculated by RECIST 1.1. Overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier survival method. Results. A total of 29 patients (17 male and 12 female) were included. Median age at CAPTEM initiation was 58 years (range: 26-77). Primary tumors included 9 small bowel (31%), 15 pancreas (52%), 3 lung (10%), and 2 rectum (7%). Median number of CAPTEM cycles was 8 (range: 1-55). Partial response occurred in 5 patients (5 of 29, 17%); 14 patients
Background: Checkpoint inhibitors have transformed the treatment of cancer in adults. This class of drugs has demonstrated encouraging results in various malignancies such as metastatic melanoma, bladder cancer, renal cancer, and non-small cell lung carcinoma. However, researchers have only begun investigating the effectiveness and tolerability of checkpoint inhibitors in pediatric patients. Methods: We conducted a review of PubMed indexed literature and clinicaltrials.gov using combinations of the keywords checkpoint, inhibitor, pediatric, CTLA-4 (cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4), PD-1 (programmed cell death-1), and PD-L1 (programmed cell death receptor-1 ligand) to find every recently completed and ongoing trial evaluating checkpoint inhibitors in patients younger than 21 years old. Pertinent articles and clinical trials discussing the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the pediatric population were selected for final analysis and manuscript citation. Results: This review presents an overview of the cellular mechanisms involved in checkpoint inhibition and of studies evaluating checkpoint inhibitors in humans. The review also details results and side effects from studies conducted with pediatric patients, current pediatric clinical trials, and future implications. Conclusion: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have the potential to further therapeutic advances in pediatric oncology; however, we need more clinical trials and combination drug strategies targeted toward pediatric cancers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.