Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of oncolytic virotherapies in the treatment of advanced melanoma still remains controversal. It is necessary to conduct quantitative evaluation on the basis of preclinical trial reports. METHODS: Publicly available databases (PubMed, Embase, Medline, Web of Science and Cochrane Library.) and register (Clinicaltrials.gov) were searched to collect treatment outcomes of oncolytic virotherapies (including herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV), coxsackievirus A21 (CVA21), adenovirus, poxvirus and reovirus) for advanced/unresectable melanoma. Comparisons of treatment response, adverse events (AEs) and survival analyses for different virotherapies were performed by R software based on the extracted data from eligible studies. RESULTS: Finally, thirty-four eligible studies were analysed and HSV virotherapy had the highest average complete response (CR, 24.8%) and HSV had a slightly higher average overall response rate (ORR) than CVA21 (43.8% vs 42.6%). In the pooled results of comparing talimogene laherparepve (T-VEC) with or without GM-CSF/ICIs (immune checkpoint inhibitors) to GM-CSF/ICIs monotherapy suggested virotherapy was more efficient in subgroups CR (RR = 1.80, 95% CI [1.30; 2.51], P < 0.01), ORR (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.02; 1.34], P < 0.05), and DCR (RR = 1.27, 95% CI [1.15; 1.40], P < 0.01). In patients treated with T-VEC+ICIs, 2-year overall survival (12.1 ± 6.9 months) and progression-free survival (9.9 ± 6.9) were significantly longer than those treated with T-VEC alone. Furthermore, we found that AEs occurred frequently in virotherapy but decreased in a large cohort of enrolled patients, some of which, such as abdominal distension/pain, injection site pain and pruritus, were found to be positively associated with disease progression in patients treated with T-VEC monotherapy. CONCLUSION: Given the relative safety and tolerability of oncolytic viruses, and the lack of reports of dose-limiting-dependent toxicities, more patients treated with T-VEC with or without ICIs should be added to future assessment analyses. There is still a long way to go before it can be used as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced or unresectable melanoma.