Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision | |||
oncolytic_virus_for_high-grade_glioma [2025/06/25 09:17] – [Oncolytic virus for high-grade glioma] administrador | oncolytic_virus_for_high-grade_glioma [2025/06/25 09:20] (current) – administrador | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
===== Reviews ===== | ===== Reviews ===== | ||
- | ===== Study Summary ===== | + | In a Review |
- | | *Field* | + | Raziye Piranlioglu *et al.* from |
- | |-------------|-----------| | + | |
- | | **Type of study** | Review | + | |
- | | **First author** | + | |
- | | **Affiliations** | Harvey Cushing Neuro‑oncology Laboratories, | + | |
- | | **Journal** | + | |
- | | **Purpose** | + | |
- | | **Conclusions** | + | |
- | ===== Ruthless Critique | + | | **Affiliations** | Harvey Cushing Neuro‑oncology Laboratories, |
+ | published in *Seminars in Immunology* | ||
+ | with the **Purpose** | ||
+ | They concluded that Oncolytic virus therapy is well tolerated in GBM trials and can convert the immunosuppressive microenvironment into an immunologically active state. However, limitations in post‑treatment sampling and delivery methods impede full understanding of biological mechanisms. | ||
+ | ---- | ||
This review is a rehash of well‑known take‑home messages, offering little in the way of novel synthesis or incisive critique. The authors lean heavily on canonical trials (e.g., oHSV, adenovirus) but fail to integrate preclinical correlates from myeloid-targeting strategies, such as macrophage polarization dynamics or MDSC modulation. There’s no fresh mechanism, no meta‑analysis of response rates, and no exploration of why most trials remain phase I with limited impact. Sample‑scarcity is once again highlighted as a blocker—but no alternative trial designs (e.g., neoadjuvant window cohorts, liquid biopsy) are proposed. In short, the review scratches the surface of challenges without pushing the field forward. | This review is a rehash of well‑known take‑home messages, offering little in the way of novel synthesis or incisive critique. The authors lean heavily on canonical trials (e.g., oHSV, adenovirus) but fail to integrate preclinical correlates from myeloid-targeting strategies, such as macrophage polarization dynamics or MDSC modulation. There’s no fresh mechanism, no meta‑analysis of response rates, and no exploration of why most trials remain phase I with limited impact. Sample‑scarcity is once again highlighted as a blocker—but no alternative trial designs (e.g., neoadjuvant window cohorts, liquid biopsy) are proposed. In short, the review scratches the surface of challenges without pushing the field forward. | ||
Line 86: | Line 83: | ||
3 / 10 | 3 / 10 | ||
- | ===== Citation & Details ===== | + | ((Piranlioglu R, Chiocca EA. Oncolytic virus‑mediated immunomodulation in glioblastoma: |
- | __Citation__: | + | |
- | + | ||
- | *Full title*: " | + | |
*Publication date*: June 23, 2025 | *Publication date*: June 23, 2025 | ||
*Corresponding author email*: rpiranlioglu@bwh.harvard.edu | *Corresponding author email*: rpiranlioglu@bwh.harvard.edu |