Clinical landscape of oncolytic virus research in 2020

Trial watch: intratumoral immunotherapy

While chemotherapy and radiotherapy remain the first-line approaches for the management of most unresectable tumors, immunotherapy has emerged in the past two decades as a game-changing treatment, notably with the clinical success of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Immunotherapies aim at (re)activating anticancer immune responses which occur in two main steps: (1) the activation and expansion of tumor-specific T cells following cross-presentation of tumor antigens by specialized myeloid cells (priming phase); and (2) the immunological clearance of malignant cells by these antitumor T lymphocytes (effector phase). Therapeutic vaccines, adjuvants, monoclonal antibodies, cytokines, immunogenic cell death-inducing agents including oncolytic viruses, anthracycline-based chemotherapy and radiotherapy, as well as adoptive cell transfer, all act at different levels of this cascade to (re)instate cancer immunosurveillance. Intratumoral delivery of these immunotherapeutics is being tested in clinical trials to promote superior antitumor immune activity in the context of limited systemic toxicity.

Oncolytic virus therapy in cancer: A current review

In view of the advancement in the understanding about the most diverse types of cancer and consequently a relentless search for a cure and increased survival rates of cancer patients, finding a therapy that is able to combat the mechanism of aggression of this disease is extremely important. Thus, oncolytic viruses (OVs) have demonstrated great benefits in the treatment of cancer because it mediates antitumor effects in several ways. Viruses can be used to infect cancer cells, especially over normal cells, to present tumor-associated antigens, to activate "danger signals" that generate a less immune-tolerant tumor microenvironment, and to serve transduction vehicles for expression of inflammatory and immunomodulatory cytokines. The success of therapies using OVs was initially demonstrated by the use of the genetically modified herpes virus, talimogene laherparepvec, for the treatment of melanoma. At this time, several OVs are being studied as a potential treatment for cancer in clinical trials. However, it is necessary to be aware of the safety and possible adverse effects of this therapy; after all, an effective treatment for cancer should promote regression, attack the tumor, and in the meantime induce minimal systemic repercussions. In this manuscript, we will present a current review of the mechanism of action of OVs, main clinical uses, updates, and future perspectives on this treatment.

Oncolytic viruses for triple negative breast cancer and beyond

Biological therapy is considered an alternative treatment capable of eliciting the same effects on tumors as surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. As a major player in biological therapy, oncolytic viruses (OVs) have attracted great attention and achieved good results. Specifically, the successful application of OVs in head and neck cancer, as well as melanoma, promoted its research in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). TNBC is a high-risk molecular type of breast cancer, characterized by strong invasion, easy recurrence, and metastasis. Due to the absence of estrogen and progesterone receptors, as well as the absence of overexpression or gene amplification of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), endocrine therapy and anti HER-2 targeted therapy have proven ineffective. Although chemotherapy has shown substantial efficacy in some TNBC patients, the occurrence of drug resistance and poor prognosis have prompted the exploration of new and effective treatment methods. The emerging concept of OVs provides a new platform to treat TNBC. Indeed, several studies have confirmed the therapeutic effects of OVs in TNBC. Numerous studies have also investigated the efficacy of OVs in other malignances, including solid tumor clinical trials, thus further demonstrating the promising application of oncolytic virotherapy for TNBC. The primary focus of the current review is the examination of OV mechanisms underlying their antitumor properties, while also summarizing the ongoing progress in OV research regarding TNBC treatment, as well as the various combinatorial strategies comprising OVs and other therapies. We also briefly introduce specific relevant clinical trials and discuss some of the progress in the research of novel OVs for the treatment of other malignancies, thereby affirming the significant therapeutic potential of OVs for the treatment of TNBC, as well as other cancers.

The role of NK cells in oncolytic viral therapy: a focus on hepatocellular carcinoma

Natural killer (NK) cells have a key role in host anti-tumour immune responses via direct killing of tumour cells and promotion of adaptive immune responses. They are therefore attractive targets to promote the anti-tumour efficacy of oncolytic viral therapies. However, NK cells are also potent components of the host anti-viral immune response, and therefore have the potential for detrimental anti-viral responses, limiting the spread and persistence of oncolytic viruses. Oncolytic viruses are currently being investigated for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a leading cause of cancer-related death with a high unmet clinical need. In this review, we highlight the role of NK cells in oncolytic virus therapy, their potential for improving treatment options for patients with HCC, and discuss current and potential strategies targeting NK cells in combination with oncolytic viral therapies.

Efficacy and safety of oncolytic viruses in advanced or metastatic cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) have shown prospects in advanced and metastatic cancer, and many clinical trials have been carried out. To compare OV therapies comprehensively and provide a categorized profile and ranking of efficacy and safety, a network meta-analysis was conducted.

METHODS

A total of 5948 studies were screened and 13 randomized controlled trials with 1939 patients, of whom 1106 patients received OV therapies, comparing four OVs (NTX-010, pexastimogene devacirepvec (Pexa-Vec), talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), and pelareorep) were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Eligible studies reported at least one of the following clinical outcome measures: objective response rate (ORR) and grade ≥ 3 adverse events.

RESULTS

Compared to systemic treatments alone, talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) (OR 7.00, 95% CI 1.90-26.00) and T-VEC plus systemic treatment (2.90, 0.80-11.00) showed better objective response rates (ORRs), whereas Pexa-Vec 1 * 109 pfu plus systemic treatment (0.91, 0.26-3.00) and pelareorep plus systemic treatment (1.10, 0.61-2.00) were found to be comparable. The grade ≥ 3 adverse event ranking of the treatments from worst to best was as follows: T-VEC (ranking probability 24%), Pexa-Vec 1 * 109 pfu plus systemic treatment (21%), Pexa-Vec 1 * 109 pfu (17%), T-VEC plus systemic treatment (13%), pelareorep plus systemic treatment (13%), systemic treatments (18%), Pexa-Vec 1 * 108 pfu (12%), and NTX-010 (20%).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with other oncolytic virus therapies for patients with advanced or metastatic cancer, T-VEC and T-VEC plus systemic treatment appear to provide the best ORR therapy in terms of monotherapy and combination respectively, but should be given with caution to grade ≥ 3 adverse events. Conversely, combining OVs with chemotherapy or target agents was demonstrated not to improve efficacy compared with chemotherapy or target agents alone. Combining OV therapies with immune-checkpoint inhibitors, instead of chemotherapy or target agents, tended to provide better ORRs without causing severe adverse events. This study will guide treatment choice and optimize future trial designs for investigations of advanced or metastatic cancer.

Virotherapy in Germany-Recent Activities in Virus Engineering, Preclinical Development, and Clinical Studies

Virotherapy research involves the development, exploration, and application of oncolytic viruses that combine direct killing of cancer cells by viral infection, replication, and spread (oncolysis) with indirect killing by induction of anti-tumor immune responses. Oncolytic viruses can also be engineered to genetically deliver therapeutic proteins for direct or indirect cancer cell killing. In this review—as part of the special edition on “State-of-the-Art Viral Vector Gene Therapy in Germany”—the German community of virotherapists provides an overview of their recent research activities that cover endeavors from screening and engineering viruses as oncolytic cancer therapeutics to their clinical translation in investigator-initiated and sponsored multi-center trials. Preclinical research explores multiple viral platforms, including new isolates, serotypes, or fitness mutants, and pursues unique approaches to engineer them towards increased safety, shielded or targeted delivery, selective or enhanced replication, improved immune activation, delivery of therapeutic proteins or RNA, and redirecting antiviral immunity for cancer cell killing. Moreover, several oncolytic virus-based combination therapies are under investigation. Clinical trials in Germany explore the safety and potency of virotherapeutics based on parvo-, vaccinia, herpes, measles, reo-, adeno-, vesicular stomatitis, and coxsackie viruses, including viruses encoding therapeutic proteins or combinations with immune checkpoint inhibitors. These research advances represent exciting vantage points for future endeavors of the German virotherapy community collectively aimed at the implementation of effective virotherapeutics in clinical oncology.

The Next-Generation of Combination Cancer Immunotherapy: Epigenetic Immunomodulators Transmogrify Immune Training to Enhance Immunotherapy

Cancer immunotherapy harnesses the immune system by targeting tumor cells that express antigens recognized by immune system cells, thus leading to tumor rejection. These tumor-associated antigens include tumor-specific shared antigens, differentiation antigens, protein products of mutated genes and rearrangements unique to tumor cells, overexpressed tissue-specific antigens, and exogenous viral proteins. However, the development of effective therapeutic approaches has proven difficult, mainly because these tumor antigens are shielded, and cells primarily express self-derived antigens. Despite innovative and notable advances in immunotherapy, challenges associated with variable patient response rates and efficacy on select tumors minimize the overall effectiveness of immunotherapy. Variations observed in response rates to immunotherapy are due to multiple factors, including adaptative resistance, competency, and a diversity of individual immune systems, including cancer stem cells in the tumor microenvironment, composition of the gut microbiota, and broad limitations of current immunotherapeutic approaches. New approaches are positioned to improve the immune response and increase the efficacy of immunotherapies, highlighting the challenges that the current global COVID-19 pandemic places on the present state of immunotherapy.

Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells: Implications in the Resistance of Malignant Tumors to T Cell-Based Immunotherapy

T lymphocytes function as major players in antigen-mediated cytotoxicity and have become powerful tools for exploiting the immune system in tumor elimination. Several types of T cell-based immunotherapies have been prescribed to cancer patients with durable immunological response. Such strategies include immune checkpoint inhibitors, adoptive T cell therapy, cancer vaccines, oncolytic virus, and modulatory cytokines. However, the majority of cancer patients still failed to take the advantage of these kinds of treatments. Currently, extensive attempts are being made to uncover the potential mechanism of immunotherapy resistance, and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) have been identified as one of vital interpretable factors. Here, we discuss the immunosuppressive mechanism of MDSCs and their contributions to failures of T cell-based immunotherapy. Additionally, we summarize combination therapies to ameliorate the efficacy of T cell-based immunotherapy.

Combining Oncolytic Viruses and Small Molecule Therapeutics: Mutual Benefits

The focus of treating cancer with oncolytic viruses (OVs) has increasingly shifted towards achieving efficacy through the induction and augmentation of an antitumor immune response. However, innate antiviral responses can limit the activity of many OVs within the tumor and several immunosuppressive factors can hamper any subsequent antitumor immune responses. In recent decades, numerous small molecule compounds that either inhibit the immunosuppressive features of tumor cells or antagonize antiviral immunity have been developed and tested for. Here we comprehensively review small molecule compounds that can achieve therapeutic synergy with OVs. We also elaborate on the mechanisms by which these treatments elicit anti-tumor effects as monotherapies and how these complement OV treatment.

Combinatorial Approaches for Cancer Treatment Using Oncolytic Viruses: Projecting the Perspectives through Clinical Trials Outcomes

Recent cancer immunotherapy breakthroughs have fundamentally changed oncology and revived the fading hope for a cancer cure. The immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) became an indispensable tool for the treatment of many malignant tumors. Alongside ICI, the application of oncolytic viruses in clinical trials is demonstrating encouraging outcomes. Dozens of combinations of oncolytic viruses with conventional radiotherapy and chemotherapy are widely used or studied, but it seems quite complicated to highlight the most effective combinations. Our review summarizes the results of clinical trials evaluating oncolytic viruses with or without genetic alterations in combination with immune checkpoint blockade, cytokines, antigens and other oncolytic viruses as well. This review is focused on the efficacy and safety of virotherapy and the most promising combinations based on the published clinical data, rather than presenting all oncolytic virus variations, which are discussed in comprehensive literature reviews. We briefly revise the research landscape of oncolytic viruses and discuss future perspectives in virus immunotherapy, in order to provide an insight for novel strategies of cancer treatment.

Oncolytic parainfluenza virus combines with NK cells to mediate killing of infected and non-infected lung cancer cells within 3D spheroids: role of type I and type III interferon signaling

BACKGROUND

There is intense interest in developing novel oncolytic viruses, which can be used in cancer therapies along with immune cells such as natural killer (NK) cells. We have previously developed a particle-based method for in vitro expansion of highly cytotoxic human NK cells (PM21-NK cells). Here, we have tested the hypothesis that oncolytic parainfluenza virus 5 (P/V virus) can combine with PM21-NK cells for targeted killing of lung cancer cells.

METHODS

PM21-NK cells were assayed for killing of P/V virus-infected A549, H1299 and Calu-1 lung cancer cells in two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) cultures using flow cytometry, luminescence and kinetic imaging-based methods. Blocking antibodies were used to evaluate NK cell activating receptors involved in PM21-NK cell killing of infected target cells. Media transfer experiments tested soluble factors that increase PM21-NK cell killing of both P/V virus-infected and uninfected tumor cells.

RESULTS

In 2D cultures, PM21-NK cells efficiently killed P/V virus-infected cancer cells compared with non-infected cells, through involvement of the viral glycoprotein and NK cell receptors NKp30, NKp46 and NKG2D. In 3D spheroid cultures, P/V virus infection was restricted to the outer layer of the spheroid. However, PM21-NK cells were able to more efficiently kill both the outer layer of infected cells in the spheroid and progressing further to kill the uninfected interior cells. Media transfer experiments demonstrated that P/V virus infection produced both type I and type III interferons, which decreased cell growth, which contributed to a reduction in the overall number of uninfected tumor cells in conjunction with PM21-NK cells. Across five cancer cell lines, the contribution of P/V virus infection on PM21-NK cell killing of target cells correlated with interferon induction.

CONCLUSION

Our data support the potential of combining oncolytic parainfluenza virus with PM21-NK cell adoptive therapy against lung cancer.

Cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 antibody aggrandizes antitumor immune response of oncolytic virus M1 via targeting regulatory T cells

Oncolytic virotherapies are perceived as remarkable immunotherapies coming into view and represent highly promising cancer treatments, yet to figure out its specific immune responses and underlying barriers remains critical. Albeit recent studies have demonstrated that oncolytic viruses (OVs) could fine tune tumor microenvironment (TME) to elicit tumor suppression mainly due to effective T-cell responses, the interaction between suppressive T cells and OVs is barely undetermined. Herein, we found that regulatory T cells (Treg cells) were increased in the TME following systemic administration of oncolytic virus M1 along with the higher expression of relative cytokines and chemokines in both mouse RM-1 prostatic carcinoma model and mouse B16F10 melanoma model. Besides, Treg cells expressed high levels of CD25 post-M1 treatment, and its suppressive effect on CD8⁺ T cells was also elevated. Depletion of Treg cells in M1-treated groups significantly reinforced antitumor effect of M1. Specific targeting of Treg cells using cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) antibody (Ab) in combination with M1 treatment elicited a more profound tumor suppression and longer overall survival time than M1 alone in both tumor models. Moreover, CTLA-4 Ab further aggrandized antitumor immune response elicited by M1, including increased infiltration of CD45⁺ immune cells and CD8⁺ or CD4⁺ T lymphocytes, decreased ratio of Treg cells to CD4⁺ T lymphocytes, the intensified lymphocytotoxicity and elevated secretion of cytotoxic cytokines like interferon-γ, granzyme B and perforin. Therefore, our findings constituted a suggestive evidence that targeting Treg cells in M1-based oncolytic virotherapy may achieve a highly response in clinical cancer research.

Modular network mechanism of CCN1-associated resistance to HSV-1-derived oncolytic immunovirotherapies for glioblastomas

Glioblastomas (GBMs) are the most common and lethal primary brain malignancy in adults. Oncolytic virus (OV) immunotherapies selectively kill GBM cells in a manner that elicits antitumor immunity. Cellular communication network factor 1 (CCN1), a protein found in most GBM microenvironments, expression predicts resistance to OVs, particularly herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1). This study aims to understand how extracellular CCN1 alters the GBM intracellular state to confer OV resistance. Protein-protein interaction network information flow analyses of LN229 human GBM transcriptomes identified 39 novel nodes and 12 binary edges dominating flow in CCN1high cells versus controls. Virus response programs, notably against HSV-1, and cytokine-mediated signaling pathways are highly enriched. Our results suggest that CCN1high states exploit IDH1 and TP53, and increase dependency on RPL6, HUWE1, and COPS5. To validate, we reproduce our findings in 65 other GBM cell line (CCLE) and 174 clinical GBM patient sample (TCGA) datasets. We conclude through our generalized network modeling and system level analysis that CCN1 signals via several innate immune pathways in GBM to inhibit HSV-1 OVs before transduction. Interventions disrupting this network may overcome immunovirotherapy resistance.

Emerging avenues in immunotherapy for the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma

BACKGROUND

The role of immunotherapy in cancer is now well-established, and therapeutic options such as checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being approved in many cancers such as non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare orphan disease associated with prior exposure to asbestos, with a dismal prognosis. Evidence from clinical trials of checkpoint inhibitors in this rare disease, suggest that such therapies may play a role as a treatment option for a proportion of patients with this cancer.

MAIN TEXT

While the majority of studies currently focus on the established checkpoint inhibitors (CTLA4 and PD1/PDL1), there are many other potential checkpoints that could also be targeted. In this review I provide a synopsis of current clinical trials of immunotherapies in MPM, explore potential candidate new avenues that may become future targets for immunotherapy and discuss aspects of immunotherapy that may affect the clinical outcomes of such therapies in this cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The current situation regarding checkpoint inhibitors in the management of MPM whilst encouraging, despite impressive durable responses, immune checkpoint inhibitors do not provide a long-term benefit to the majority of patients with cancer. Additional studies are therefore required to further delineate and improve our understanding of both checkpoint inhibitors and the immune system in MPM. Moreover, many new potential checkpoints have yet to be studied for their therapeutic potential in MPM. All these plus the existing checkpoint inhibitors will require the development of new biomarkers for patient stratification, response and also for predicting or monitoring the emergence of resistance to these agents in MPM patients. Other potential therapeutic avenues such CAR-T therapy or treatments like oncolytic viruses or agents that target the interferon pathway designed to recruit more immune cells to the tumor also hold great promise in this hard to treat cancer.

Biological Therapy with Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Innocuous Integrative Oncology: A Case of Cervical Cancer

Good medicine is based on good science, inquiry driven and open to new paradigms. For a complex disease such as cancer, a complex treatment regime that is well structured and multifactorial is indispensable. In the present day, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) therapies are being used frequently for cancer, alongside modern biological therapies and allopathic medicine, in what is called integrative oncology. In all conscience, the use of natural, less invasive interventions whenever possible is ideal. However, a comprehensive understanding of not only the etiopathology of individual cancers, but also the detailed genetic and epigenetic characteristics, the cancer hallmarks, that clearly show the blueprint of the cancer phenotype is a requisite. Different tumors have a common behavioral pattern, but their specific features at the genetic and epigenetic levels vary to a great extent. Henceforth, with so many failed attempts to therapy, drug formulations and combinations need a focused pre-assessment of the inherent features of individual cancers to destroy the tumors holistically by targeting these features. This review therefore presents innocuous therapeutic regimes by means of CAM and integrative medicine approaches that can specifically target the hallmarks of cancer, using the case of cervical cancer.

Coxsackievirus B3-Its Potential as an Oncolytic Virus

Oncolytic virotherapy represents one of the most advanced strategies to treat otherwise untreatable types of cancer. Despite encouraging developments in recent years, the limited fraction of patients responding to therapy has demonstrated the need to search for new suitable viruses. Coxsackievirus B3 (CVB3) is a promising novel candidate with particularly valuable features. Its entry receptor, the coxsackievirus and adenovirus receptor (CAR), and heparan sulfate, which is used for cellular entry by some CVB3 variants, are highly expressed on various cancer types. Consequently, CVB3 has broad anti-tumor activity, as shown in various xenograft and syngeneic mouse tumor models. In addition to direct tumor cell killing the virus induces a strong immune response against the tumor, which contributes to a substantial increase in the efficiency of the treatment. The toxicity of oncolytic CVB3 in healthy tissues is variable and depends on the virus strain. It can be abrogated by genetic engineering the virus with target sites of microRNAs. In this review, we present an overview of the current status of the development of CVB3 as an oncolytic virus and outline which steps still need to be accomplished to develop CVB3 as a therapeutic agent for clinical use in cancer treatment.

Oncolytic viruses encoding bispecific T cell engagers: a blueprint for emerging immunovirotherapies

Bispecific T cell engagers (BiTEs) are an innovative class of immunotherapeutics that redirect T cells to tumor surface antigens. While efficacious against certain hematological malignancies, limited bioavailability and severe toxicities have so far hampered broader clinical application, especially against solid tumors. Another emerging cancer immunotherapy are oncolytic viruses (OVs) which selectively infect and replicate in malignant cells, thereby mediating tumor vaccination effects. These oncotropic viruses can serve as vectors for tumor-targeted immunomodulation and synergize with other immunotherapies. In this article, we discuss the use of OVs to overcome challenges in BiTE therapy. We review the current state of the field, covering published preclinical studies as well as ongoing clinical investigations. We systematically introduce OV-BiTE vector design and characteristics as well as evidence for immune-stimulating and anti-tumor effects. Moreover, we address additional combination regimens, including CAR T cells and immune checkpoint inhibitors, and further strategies to modulate the tumor microenvironment using OV-BiTEs. The inherent complexity of these novel therapeutics highlights the importance of translational research including correlative studies in early-phase clinical trials. More broadly, OV-BiTEs can serve as a blueprint for diverse OV-based cancer immunotherapies.

Immunotherapeutic Efficacy of Retargeted oHSVs Designed for Propagation in an Ad Hoc Cell Line

Our laboratory has pursued the generation of cancer-specific oncolytic herpes simplex viruses (oHSVs) which ensure high efficacy while maintaining a high safety profile. Their blueprint included retargeting to a Tumor-Associated Antigen, e.g., HER2, coupled to detargeting from natural receptors to avoid off-target and off-tumor infections and preservation of the full complement of unmodified viral genes. These oHSVs are "fully virulent in their target cancer cells". The 3rd generation retargeted oHSVs carry two distinct retargeting moieties, which enable infection of a producer cell line and of the target cancer cells, respectively. They can be propagated in an ad hoc Vero cell derivative at about tenfold higher yields than 1st generation recombinants, and more effectively replicate in human cancer cell lines. The R-335 and R-337 prototypes were armed with murine IL-12. Intratumorally-administered R-337 conferred almost complete protection from LLC-1-HER2 primary tumors, unleashed the tumor microenvironment immunosuppression, synergized with the checkpoint blockade and conferred long-term vaccination against distant challenge tumors. In summary, the problem intrinsic to the propagation of retargeted oHSVs-which strictly require cells positive for targeted receptors-was solved in 3rd generation viruses. They are effective as immunotherapeutic agents against primary tumors and as antigen-agnostic vaccines.

Merits of the 'good' viruses: the potential of virus-based therapeutics

Introduction: Although viruses have generally been considered as pathogens ever since their discovery, recent research has revealed that they might assume a more important role in the survival and evolution of their hosts. Besides this, they also hold the potential as therapies for the treatment of infections, cancers, and other diseases, with several of them already commercially available on the market. In this review, we will focus on the use of different viruses for treating diseases.Areas covered: This is a comprehensive review of the application of viruses or virus-based strategies (including bacteriophages, oncolytic viruses, viral vector-based delivery, virus-like particles, and virosomes) for therapeutic purposes. The article provides an overview of the status quo of currently available virus-based therapeutics.Expert Opinion: The efficacy of virus-based therapies has been emphasized repeatedly in the clinical trials for virotherapy, gene delivery, and virus-like particles (VLPs), with multiple therapeutics approved and marketed. Compared with chemical and biological drugs, viruses represent a unique 'research niche.' As more virus-based therapeutics are moving down the pipeline, we shall expect to see a more diversified collection of related products being recognized and applied in clinical settings in the future.

Herpes Simplex Virus Oncolytic Immunovirotherapy: The Blossoming Branch of Multimodal Therapy

Oncolytic viruses are smart therapeutics against cancer due to their potential to replicate and produce the needed therapeutic dose in the tumor, and to their ability to self-exhaust upon tumor clearance. Oncolytic virotherapy strategies based on the herpes simplex virus are reaching their thirties, and a wide variety of approaches has been envisioned and tested in many different models, and on a range of tumor targets. This huge effort has culminated in the primacy of an oncolytic HSV (oHSV) being the first oncolytic virus to be approved by the FDA and EMA for clinical use, for the treatment of advanced melanoma. The path has just been opened; many more cancer types with poor prognosis await effective and innovative therapies, and oHSVs could provide a promising solution, especially as combination therapies and immunovirotherapies. In this review, we analyze the most recent advances in this field, and try to envision the future ahead of oHSVs.