Use of Gene Transfer Vectors in Lymphedema Treatment: A Systematic Review.

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
• Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
• Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
• Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
• Emerging · Emerging topic under active research

Abstract (original English)

Different delivery mechanisms have been proposed in the literature for targeted therapies in the treatment of lymphedema. They vary from simple and direct injection to sophisticated induction of gene expression in a targeted tissue. We conducted a systematic review of publications assessing the use of viral vectors for gene transfer in lymphedema treatment. We hypothesized that viral vectors are an effective way to deliver targeted therapy in lymphedema treatment. We conducted a comprehensive systematic review of the published literature on targeted therapies associated with lymphedema surgery using the PubMed database. Eligibility criteria excluded papers that reported use of viral vectors for other medical conditions. Abstracts, presentations, reviews, meta-analyses, and non-English language articles were also excluded. From 21 potential articles found in the literature, fourteen fulfilled study eligibility criteria. Positive outcomes in terms of lymphangiogenesis were seen. The viral vectors used included adenovirus and recombinant adeno-associated virus. Most of the genes expressed were growth factors, but expression of dominant-negative transforming growth factor-β1 receptor-II or Prox1 was also proposed. Five studies targeted genetic expression on lymphedema tissue, five on transplanted lymph nodes, two on skeletal muscle, and one on adipose-derived stem cells. Publicatio

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.