Assessing the Completeness of Reporting in Preclinical Oncolytic Virus Therapy Studies

Citation

Fergusson DA, Wesch NL, Leung GJ, MacNeil JL, Conic I, Presseau J, Cobey KD, Diallo J, Auer R, Kimmelman J, Kekre N, El-Sayes N, Krishnan R, Keller BA, Ilkow C & Lalu MM (2019) Assessing the Completeness of Reporting in Preclinical Oncolytic Virus Therapy Studies. Molecular Therapy - Oncolytics, 14, pp. 179-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omto.2019.05.004

Abstract
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.

Journal
Molecular Therapy - Oncolytics: Volume 14

• Assessing the Completeness of Reporting in Preclinical Oncolytic Virus Therapy Studies