Molecular Therapy: Oncolytics (Sep 2019)

Assessing the Completeness of Reporting in Preclinical Oncolytic Virus Therapy Studies

  • Dean A. Fergusson,
  • Neil L. Wesch,
  • Garvin J. Leung,
  • Jenna L. MacNeil,
  • Isidora Conic,
  • Justin Presseau,
  • Kelly D. Cobey,
  • Jean-Simon Diallo,
  • Rebecca Auer,
  • Jonathan Kimmelman,
  • Natasha Kekre,
  • Nader El-Sayes,
  • Ramya Krishnan,
  • Brian A. Keller,
  • Carolina Ilkow,
  • Manoj M. Lalu

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14
pp. 179 – 187

Abstract

Read online

Irreproducibility of preclinical findings could be a significant barrier to the “bench-to-bedside” development of oncolytic viruses (OVs). A contributing factor is the incomplete and non-transparent reporting of study methodology and design. Using the NIH Principles and Guidelines for Reporting Preclinical Research, a core set of seven recommendations, we evaluated the completeness of reporting of preclinical OV studies. We also developed an evidence map identifying the current trends in OV research. A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase identified all relevant articles published over an 18 month period. We screened 1,554 articles, and 236 met our a priori-defined inclusion criteria. Adenovirus (43%) was the most commonly used viral platform. Frequently investigated cancers included colorectal (14%), skin (12%), and breast (11%). Xenograft implantation (61%) in mice (96%) was the most common animal model. The use of preclinical reporting guidelines was listed in 0.4% of articles. Biological and technical replicates were completely reported in 1% of studies, statistics in 49%, randomization in 1%, blinding in 2%, sample size estimation in 0%, and inclusion/exclusion criteria in 0%. Overall, completeness of reporting in the preclinical OV therapy literature is poor. This may hinder efforts to interpret, replicate, and ultimately translate promising preclinical OV findings. Keywords: oncolytic virus, reporting guidelines, preclinical study design, reproducibility, methodological rigor, reporting standards, transparency, reporting quality, immunotherapy