MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993840402 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029475

Mapping the preclinical to clinical evidence and development trajectory of the oncolytic virus talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC): a systematic review

2019· review· en· W2993840402 on OpenAlexafffund
Manoj M. Lalu, Garvin J. Leung, Yuan Dong, Joshua Montroy, Claire Butler, Rebecca C. Auer, Dean Fergusson

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVirus-based gene therapy research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
FundersOttawa Hospital Anesthesia Alternate Funds AssociationGovernment of CanadaOttawa Hospital Research InstituteUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyOncologyAdverse effectInternal medicineMeta-analysisClinical trialMalignancyPsychological interventionSystematic reviewMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of preclinical and clinical evidence to chart the successful trajectory of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) from the bench to the clinic. DESIGN: This study was a systematic review. The primary outcome of interest was the efficacy of treatment, determined by complete response. Abstract and full-text selection as well as data extraction were done by two independent reviewers. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias in studies. SETTING: Embase, Embase Classic and OvidMedline were searched from inception until May 2016 to assess its development trajectory to approval in 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Preclinical and clinical controlled comparison studies, as well as observational studies. INTERVENTIONS: T-VEC for the treatment of any malignancy. RESULTS: 8852 records were screened and five preclinical (n=150 animals) and seven clinical studies (n=589 patients) were included. We saw large decreases in T-VEC's efficacy as studies moved from the laboratory to patients, and as studies became more methodologically rigorous. Preclinical studies reported complete regression rates up to 100% for injected tumours and 80% for contralateral tumours, while the highest degree of efficacy seen in the clinical setting was a 24% complete response rate, with one study experiencing a complete response rate of 0%. We were unable to reliably assess safety due to the lack of reporting, as well as the heterogeneity seen in adverse event definitions. All preclinical studies had high or unclear risk of bias, and all clinical studies were at a high risk of bias in at least one domain. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings illustrate that even successful biotherapeutics may not demonstrate a clear translational road map. This emphasises the need to consider increasing rigour and transparency along the translational pathway. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016043541.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.124
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.124
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.010
Bibliometrics0.0150.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.481
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.071 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicVirus-based gene therapy researchFrench-language works237,207