A randomized phase II study of weekly paclitaxel with or without pelareorep in patients with metastatic breast cancer: final analysis of Canadian Cancer Trials Group IND.213

New hopes for the breast cancer treatment: perspectives on the oncolytic virus therapy

Oncolytic virus (OV) therapy has emerged as a promising frontier in cancer treatment, especially for solid tumours. While immunotherapies like immune checkpoint inhibitors and CAR-T cells have demonstrated impressive results, their limitations in inducing complete tumour regression have spurred researchers to explore new approaches targeting tumours resistant to current immunotherapies. OVs, both natural and genetically engineered, selectively replicate within cancer cells, inducing their lysis while sparing normal tissues. Recent advancements in clinical research and genetic engineering have enabled the development of targeted viruses that modify the tumour microenvironment, triggering anti-tumour immune responses and exhibiting synergistic effects with other cancer therapies. Several OVs have been studied for breast cancer treatment, including adenovirus, protoparvovirus, vaccinia virus, reovirus, and herpes simplex virus type I (HSV-1). These viruses have been modified or engineered to enhance their tumour-selective replication, reduce toxicity, and improve oncolytic properties.Newer generations of OVs, such as Oncoviron and Delta-24-RGD adenovirus, exhibit heightened replication selectivity and enhanced anticancer effects, particularly in breast cancer models. Clinical trials have explored the efficacy and safety of various OVs in treating different cancers, including melanoma, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, head and neck cancer, and gynecologic malignancies. Notably, Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) and Oncorine have. been approved for advanced melanoma and nasopharyngeal carcinoma, respectively. However, adverse effects have been reported in some cases, including flu-like symptoms and rare instances of severe complications such as fistula formation. Although no OV has been approved specifically for breast cancer treatment, ongoing preclinical clinical trials focus on four groups of viruses. While mild adverse effects like low-grade fever and nausea have been observed, the effectiveness of OV monotherapy in breast cancer remains insufficient. Combination strategies integrating OVs with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or immunotherapy, show promise in improving therapeutic outcomes. Oncolytic virus therapy holds substantial potential in breast cancer treatment, demonstrating safety in trials. Multi-approach strategies combining OVs with conventional therapies exhibit more promising therapeutic effects than monotherapy, signalling a hopeful future for OV-based breast cancer treatments.

Update on current and new potential immunotherapies in breast cancer, from bench to bedside

Impressive advances have been seen in cancer immunotherapy during the last years. Although breast cancer (BC) has been long considered as non-immunogenic, immunotherapy for the treatment of BC is now emerging as a new promising therapeutic approach with considerable potential. This is supported by a plethora of completed and ongoing preclinical and clinical studies in various types of immunotherapies. However, a significant gap between clinical oncology and basic cancer research impairs the understanding of cancer immunology and immunotherapy, hampering cancer therapy research and development. To exploit the accumulating available data in an optimal way, both fundamental mechanisms at play in BC immunotherapy and its clinical pitfalls must be integrated. Then, clinical trials must be critically designed with appropriate combinations of conventional and immunotherapeutic strategies. While there is room for major improvement, this updated review details the immunotherapeutic tools available to date, from bench to bedside, in the hope that this will lead to rethinking and optimizing standards of care for BC patients.

Improved oncolytic activity of a reovirus mutant that displays enhanced virus spread due to reduced cell attachment

Wild-type reovirus serotype 3 Dearing (T3wt), a non-pathogenic intestinal virus, has shown promise as a cancer therapy in clinical trials, but it would benefit from an increased potency. Given that T3wt is naturally adapted to the intestinal environment (rather than tumors), we genetically modified reovirus to improve its infectivity in cancer cells. Various reovirus mutants were created, and their oncolytic potency was evaluated in vitro using plaque size as a measure of virus fitness in cancer cells. Notably, Super Virus 5 (SV5), carrying five oncolytic mutations, displayed the largest plaques in breast cancer cells among the mutants tested, indicating the potential for enhancing oncolytic potency through the combination of mutations. Furthermore, in a HER2+ murine breast cancer model, mice treated with SV5 exhibited superior tumor reduction and increased survival compared with those treated with PBS or T3wt. Intriguingly, SV5 did not replicate faster than T3wt in cultured cells but demonstrated a farther spread relative to T3wt, attributed to its reduced attachment to cancer cells. These findings highlight the significance of increased virus spread as a crucial mechanism for improving oncolytic virus activity. Thus, genetic modifications of reovirus hold the potential for augmenting its efficacy in cancer therapy.

Effectiveness and safety of pelareorep plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced solid tumors: a meta-analysis

Background: Pelareorep is an oncolytic virus that causes oncolytic effects in many solid tumors, and it has shown therapeutic benefits. However, few studies have compared pelareorep combined with chemotherapy to traditional chemotherapy alone in advanced solid tumors. Consequently, we intended to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pelareorep plus chemotherapy in this paper. Methods: We searched four databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science comprehensively for studies comparing pelareorep combined with chemotherapy to chemotherapy alone in the treatment of advanced solid tumors. The outcomes measures were 1-year overall survival (OS), 2-year OS, 4-month progression-free survival (PFS), 1-year PFS, objective response rate (ORR), any-grade adverse events (any-grade AEs), and severe AEs (grade ≥ 3). Results: There were five studies involving 492 patients included in the study. Combination therapy did not significantly improve clinical outcomes in terms of 1-year OS [RR = 1.02, 95%CI = (0.82-1.25)], 2-year OS [RR = 1.00, 95%CI = (0.67-1.49)], 4-month PFS [RR = 1.00, 95%CI = (0.67-1.49)], 1-year PFS [RR = 0.79, 95%CI = (0.44-1.42)], and ORR [OR = 0.79, 95%CI = (0.49-1.27)] compared to chemotherapy alone, and the subgroup analysis of 2-year OS, 1-year PFS, and ORR based on countries and tumor sites showed similar results. In all grades, the incidence of AEs was greater with combination therapy, including fever [RR = 3.10, 95%CI = (1.48-6.52)], nausea [RR = 1.19, 95%CI = (1.02-1.38)], diarrhea [RR = 1.87, 95%CI = (1.39-2.52)], chills [RR = 4.14, 95%CI = (2.30-7.43)], headache [RR = 1.46, 95%CI = (1.02-2.09)], vomiting [RR = 1.38, 95%CI = (1.06-1.80)] and flu-like symptoms [RR = 4.18, 95%CI = (2.19-7.98)]. However, severe adverse events did not differ significantly between the two arms. Conclusion: Pelareorep addition to traditional chemotherapy did not lead to significant improvements in OS, PFS, or ORR in advanced solid tumor patients, but it did partially increase AEs in all grades, with no discernible differences in serious AEs. Therefore, the combination treatment is not recommended in patients with advanced solid tumors. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=400841, identifier CRD42023400841.

Reovirus infection of tumor cells reduces the expression of NKG2D ligands, leading to impaired NK-cell cytotoxicity and functionality

In recent years, reoviruses have been of major interest in immunotherapy because of their oncolytic properties. Preclinical and clinical trials, in which reovirus was used for the treatment of melanoma and glioblastoma, have paved the way for future clinical use of reovirus. However, little is known about how reovirus infection affects the tumor microenvironment and immune response towards infected tumor cells. Studies have shown that reovirus can directly stimulate natural killer (NK) cells, but how reovirus affects cellular ligands on tumor cells, which are ultimately key to tumor recognition and elimination by NK cells, has not been investigated. We tested how reovirus infection affects the binding of the NK Group-2 member D (NKG2D) receptor, which is a dominant mediator of NK cell anti-tumor activity. Using models of human-derived melanoma and glioblastoma tumors, we demonstrated that NKG2D ligands are downregulated in tumor cells post-reovirus-infection due to the impaired translation of these ligands in reovirus-infected cells. Moreover, we showed that downregulation of NKG2D ligands significantly impaired the binding of NKG2D to infected tumor cells. We further demonstrated that reduced recognition of NKG2D ligands significantly alters NK cell anti-tumor cytotoxicity in human primary NK cells and in the NK cell line NK-92. Thus, this study provides novel insights into reovirus-host interactions and could lead to the development of novel reovirus-based therapeutics that enhance the anti-tumor immune response.

Oncolytic Virus Engineering and Utilizations: Cancer Immunotherapy Perspective

Oncolytic viruses have positively impacted cancer immunotherapy over the past 20 years. Both natural and genetically modified viruses have shown promising results in treating various cancers. Various regulatory authorities worldwide have approved four commercial oncolytic viruses, and more are being developed to overcome this limitation and obtain better anti-tumor responses in clinical trials at various stages. Faster advancements in translating research into the commercialization of cancer immunotherapy and a comprehensive understanding of the modification strategies will widen the current knowledge of future technologies related to the development of oncolytic viruses. In this review, we discuss the strategies of virus engineering and the progress of clinical trials to achieve virotherapeutics.

Oncolytic virotherapy evolved into the fourth generation as tumor immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Oncolytic virotherapy (OVT) is a promising anti-tumor modality that utilizes oncolytic viruses (OVs) to preferentially attack cancers rather than normal tissues. With the understanding particularly in the characteristics of viruses and tumor cells, numerous innovative OVs have been engineered to conquer cancers, such as Talimogene Laherparepvec (T-VEC) and tasadenoturev (DNX-2401). However, the therapeutic safety and efficacy must be further optimized and balanced to ensure the superior safe and efficient OVT in clinics, and reasonable combination therapy strategies are also important challenges worthy to be explored.

MAIN BODY

Here we provided a critical review of the development history and status of OVT, emphasizing the mechanisms of enhancing both safety and efficacy. We propose that oncolytic virotherapy has evolved into the fourth generation as tumor immunotherapy. Particularly, to arouse T cells by designing OVs expressing bi-specific T cell activator (BiTA) is a promising strategy of killing two birds with one stone. Amazing combination of therapeutic strategies of OVs and immune cells confers immense potential for managing cancers. Moreover, the attractive preclinical OVT addressed recently, and the OVT in clinical trials were systematically reviewed.

CONCLUSION

OVs, which are advancing into clinical trials, are being envisioned as the frontier clinical anti-tumor agents coming soon.

Insights into immuno-oncology drug development landscape with focus on bone metastasis

Bone is among the main sites of metastasis in breast, prostate and other major cancers. Bone metastases remain incurable causing high mortality, severe skeletal-related effects and decreased quality of life. Despite the success of immunotherapies in oncology, no immunotherapies are approved for bone metastasis and no clear benefit has been observed with approved immunotherapies in treatment of bone metastatic disease. Therefore, it is crucial to consider unique features of tumor microenvironment in bone metastasis when developing novel therapies. The vicious cycle of bone metastasis, referring to crosstalk between tumor and bone cells that enables the tumor cells to grow in the bone microenvironment, is a well-established concept. Very recently, a novel osteoimmuno-oncology (OIO) concept was introduced to the scientific community. OIO emphasizes the significance of interactions between tumor, immune and bone cells in promoting tumor growth in bone metastasis, and it can be used to reveal the most promising targets for bone metastasis. In order to provide an insight into the current immuno-oncology drug development landscape, we used 1stOncology database, a cancer drug development resource to identify novel immunotherapies in preclinical or clinical development for breast and prostate cancer bone metastasis. Based on the database search, 24 immunotherapies were identified in preclinical or clinical development that included evaluation of effects on bone metastasis. This review provides an insight to novel immuno-oncology drug development in the context of bone metastasis. Bone metastases can be approached using different modalities, and tumor microenvironment in bone provides many potential targets for bone metastasis. Noting current increasing interest in the field of OIO, more therapeutic opportunities that primarily target bone metastasis are expected in the future.

Vaccinating against cancer: getting to prime time

Immunotherapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, cellular therapies, and T-cell engagers, have fundamentally changed our approach to treating cancer. However, successes with cancer vaccines have been more difficult to realize. While vaccines against specific viruses have been widely adopted to prevent the development of cancer, only two vaccines can improve survival in advanced disease: sipuleucel-T and talimogene laherparepvec. These represent the two approaches that have the most traction: vaccinating against cognate antigen and priming responses using tumors in situ. Here, we review the challenges and opportunities researchers face in developing therapeutic vaccines for cancer.

The Clinical Advances of Oncolytic Viruses in Cancer Immunotherapy

A promising future for oncology treatment has been brought about by the emergence of a novel approach utilizing oncolytic viruses in cancer immunotherapy. Oncolytic viruses are viruses that have been exploited genetically to assault malignant cells and activate a robust immune response. Several techniques have been developed to endow viruses with an oncolytic activity through genetic engineering. For instance, redirection capsid modification, stimulation of anti-neoplastic immune response, and genetically arming viruses with cytokines such as IL-12. Oncolytic viral clinical outcomes are sought after, particularly in more advanced cancers. The effectiveness and safety profile of the oncolytic virus in clinical studies with or without the combination of standard treatment (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or primary excision) has been assessed using response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST). This review will comprehensively outline the most recent clinical applications and provide the results from various phases of clinical trials in a variety of cancers in the latest published literature.

Mammalian orthoreovirus infection in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive (HER2+) breast cancer cells

Mammalian orthoreovirus (MRV) is a clinically benign oncolytic virus which has been investigated for use in multiple cancer types, including breast cancer (BC). In human clinical trials, MRV has been shown to be safe, and multiple BC patients have shown partial responses to intratumoral and intravenous virus delivery. Combination therapies inclusive of MRV and current FDA approved BC chemotherapies are being investigated to target metastatic, early BC, and triple negative BC. Though MRV is being tested clinically, we still do not fully understand the highly variable patient responses to MRV therapy. One of the most aggressive BC subtypes is HER2+ BC, in which human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) is dysregulated, resulting in increased growth, survival, and metastasis of cancer cells. FDA approved therapies, trastuzumab and pertuzumab, target HER2 to prevent signaling of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway. However, recent findings show that accumulation of hypoxia inducible factor-1 alpha (HIF-1α) in HER2+ BC cells contributes to trastuzumab resistance. In this work, we provide evidence that MRV infects, replicates in, and kills HER2 overexpressing cells. MRV infection is also found to have variable effects on signaling pathways that activate or are activated by HER2 expression. Finally, we show that MRV reduces HIF-1α accumulation in all the cell lines tested, including a HER2+ BC cell line. These studies provide further evidence that MRV holds promise for use in conjunction with trastuzumab to treat HER2+ BC patients.

Oncolytic virotherapy: basic principles, recent advances and future directions

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) have attracted growing awareness in the twenty-first century, as they are generally considered to have direct oncolysis and cancer immune effects. With the progress in genetic engineering technology, OVs have been adopted as versatile platforms for developing novel antitumor strategies, used alone or in combination with other therapies. Recent studies have yielded eye-catching results that delineate the promising clinical outcomes that OVs would bring about in the future. In this review, we summarized the basic principles of OVs in terms of their classifications, as well as the recent advances in OV-modification strategies based on their characteristics, biofunctions, and cancer hallmarks. Candidate OVs are expected to be designed as "qualified soldiers" first by improving target fidelity and safety, and then equipped with "cold weapons" for a proper cytocidal effect, "hot weapons" capable of activating cancer immunotherapy, or "auxiliary weapons" by harnessing tactics such as anti-angiogenesis, reversed metabolic reprogramming and decomposing extracellular matrix around tumors. Combinations with other cancer therapeutic agents have also been elaborated to show encouraging antitumor effects. Robust results from clinical trials using OV as a treatment congruously suggested its significance in future application directions and challenges in developing OVs as novel weapons for tactical decisions in cancer treatment.

Oncolytic Reoviruses: Can These Emerging Zoonotic Reoviruses Be Tamed and Utilized?

Orthoreovirus is a nonenveloped double-stranded RNA virus under the Reoviridae family. This group of viruses, especially mammalian orthoreovirus (MRV), are reported with great therapeutic values due to their oncolytic effects. In this review, the life cycle and oncolytic effect of MRV and a few emerging reoviruses were summarized. This article also highlights the challenges and strategies of utilizing MRV and the emerging reoviruses, avian orthoreovirus (ARV) and pteropine orthoreovirus (PRV), as oncolytic viruses (OVs). Besides, the emergence of potential ARV and PRV as OVs were discussed in comparison to MRV. Finally, the risk of reovirus as zoonosis or reverse zoonosis (zooanthroponosis) were debated, and concerns were raised in this article, which warrant continue surveillance of reovirus (MRV, ARV, and PRV) in animals, humans, and the environment.

p38 Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Signaling Enhances Reovirus Replication by Facilitating Efficient Virus Entry, Capsid Uncoating, and Postuncoating Steps

Mammalian orthoreovirus serotype 3 Dearing is an oncolytic virus currently undergoing multiple clinical trials as a potential cancer therapy. Previous clinical trials have emphasized the importance of prescreening patients for prognostic markers to improve therapeutic success. However, only generic cancer markers such as epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), Hras, Kras, Nras, Braf, and p53 are currently utilized, with limited benefit in predicting therapeutic efficacy. This study aimed to investigate the role of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling during reovirus infection. Using a panel of specific p38 MAPK inhibitors and an inactive inhibitor analogue, p38 MAPK signaling was found to be essential for establishment of reovirus infection by enhancing reovirus endocytosis, facilitating efficient reovirus uncoating at the endo-lysosomal stage, and augmenting postuncoating replication steps. Using a broad panel of human breast cancer cell lines, susceptibility to reovirus infection corresponded with virus binding and uncoating efficiency, which strongly correlated with status of the p38β isoform. Together, results suggest p38β isoform as a potential prognostic marker for early stages of reovirus infection that are crucial to successful reovirus infection. IMPORTANCE The use of Pelareorep (mammalian orthoreovirus) as a therapy for metastatic breast cancer has shown promising results in recent clinical trials. However, the selection of prognostic markers to stratify patients has had limited success due to the fact that these markers are upstream receptors and signaling pathways that are present in a high percentage of cancers. This study demonstrates that the mechanism of action of p38 MAPK signaling plays a key role in establishment of reovirus infection at both early entry and late replication steps. Using a panel of breast cancer cell lines, we found that the expression levels of the MAPK11 (p38β) isoform are a strong determinant of reovirus uncoating and infection establishment. Our findings suggest that selecting prognostic markers that target key steps in reovirus replication may improve patient stratification during oncolytic reovirus therapy.

Phase Ib study of talimogene laherparepvec in combination with atezolizumab in patients with triple negative breast cancer and colorectal cancer with liver metastases

BACKGROUND

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), a first-in-class oncolytic viral immunotherapy, enhances tumor-specific immune activation. T-VEC combined with atezolizumab, which blocks inhibitor T-cell checkpoints, could provide greater benefit than either agent alone. Safety/efficacy of the combination was explored in patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) with liver metastases.

METHODS

In this phase Ib, multicenter, open-label, parallel cohort study of adults with TNBC or CRC with liver metastases, T-VEC (10⁶ then 10⁸ PFU/ml; ≤4 ml) was administered into hepatic lesions via image-guided injection every 21 (±3) days. Atezolizumab 1200 mg was given on day 1 and every 21 (±3) days thereafter. Treatment continued until patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), had complete response, progressive disease, needed alternative anticancer treatment, or withdrew due to an adverse event (AE). The primary endpoint was DLT incidence, and secondary endpoints included efficacy and AEs.

RESULTS

Between 19 March 2018 and 6 November 2020, 11 patients with TNBC were enrolled (safety analysis set: n = 10); between 19 March 2018 and 16 October 2019, 25 patients with CRC were enrolled (safety analysis set: n = 24). For the 5 patients in the TNBC DLT analysis set, no patient had DLT; for the 18 patients in the CRC DLT analysis set, 3 (17%) had DLT, all serious AEs. AEs were reported by 9 (90%) TNBC and 23 (96%) CRC patients, the majority with grade ≥3 [TNBC, 7 (70%); CRC, 13 (54%)], and 1 was fatal [CRC, 1 (4%)]. Evidence of efficacy was limited. Overall response rate was 10% (95% confidence interval 0.3-44.5) for TNBC; one (10%) patient had a partial response. For CRC, no patients had a response; 14 (58%) were unassessable.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety profile reflected known risks with T-VEC including risks of intrahepatic injection; no unexpected safety findings from addition of atezolizumab to T-VEC were observed. Limited evidence of antitumor activity was observed.

Insight into the Crosstalk between Photodynamic Therapy and Immunotherapy in Breast Cancer

Breast cancer (BC) is the world's second most frequent malignancy and the leading cause of mortality among women. All in situ or invasive breast cancer derives from terminal tubulobular units; when the tumor is present only in the ducts or lobules in situ, it is called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)/lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS). The biggest risk factors are age, mutations in breast cancer genes 1 or 2 (BRCA1 or BRCA2), and dense breast tissue. Current treatments are associated with various side effects, recurrence, and poor quality of life. The critical role of the immune system in breast cancer progression/regression should always be considered. Several immunotherapy techniques for BC have been studied, including tumor-targeted antibodies (bispecific antibodies), adoptive T cell therapy, vaccinations, and immune checkpoint inhibition with anti-PD-1 antibodies. In the last decade, significant breakthroughs have been made in breast cancer immunotherapy. This advancement was principally prompted by cancer cells' escape of immune regulation and the tumor's subsequent resistance to traditional therapy. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) has shown potential as a cancer treatment. It is less intrusive, more focused, and less damaging to normal cells and tissues. It entails the employment of a photosensitizer (PS) and a specific wavelength of light to create reactive oxygen species. Recently, an increasing number of studies have shown that PDT combined with immunotherapy improves the effect of tumor drugs and reduces tumor immune escape, improving the prognosis of breast cancer patients. Therefore, we objectively evaluate strategies for their limitations and benefits, which are critical to improving outcomes for breast cancer patients. In conclusion, we offer many avenues for further study on tailored immunotherapy, such as oxygen-enhanced PDT and nanoparticles.

Exploiting RIG-I-like receptor pathway for cancer immunotherapy

RIG-I-like receptors (RLRs) are intracellular pattern recognition receptors that detect viral or bacterial infection and induce host innate immune responses. The RLRs family comprises retinoic acid-inducible gene 1 (RIG-I), melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA5) and laboratory of genetics and physiology 2 (LGP2) that have distinctive features. These receptors not only recognize RNA intermediates from viruses and bacteria, but also interact with endogenous RNA such as the mislocalized mitochondrial RNA, the aberrantly reactivated repetitive or transposable elements in the human genome. Evasion of RLRs-mediated immune response may lead to sustained infection, defective host immunity and carcinogenesis. Therapeutic targeting RLRs may not only provoke anti-infection effects, but also induce anticancer immunity or sensitize "immune-cold" tumors to immune checkpoint blockade. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge of RLRs signaling and discuss the rationale for therapeutic targeting RLRs in cancer. We describe how RLRs can be activated by synthetic RNA, oncolytic viruses, viral mimicry and radio-chemotherapy, and how the RNA agonists of RLRs can be systemically delivered in vivo. The integration of RLRs agonism with RNA interference or CAR-T cells provides new dimensions that complement cancer immunotherapy. Moreover, we update the progress of recent clinical trials for cancer therapy involving RLRs activation and immune modulation. Further studies of the mechanisms underlying RLRs signaling will shed new light on the development of cancer therapeutics. Manipulation of RLRs signaling represents an opportunity for clinically relevant cancer therapy. Addressing the challenges in this field will help develop future generations of cancer immunotherapy.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacologic Treatment Options for Women With Endocrine-Refractory or Triple-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Treatments for endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) are modestly effective at prolonging life and improving quality of life but can be extremely expensive. Given these tradeoffs in quality of life and cost, the optimal choice of treatment sequencing is unclear. Cost-effectiveness analysis can explicitly quantify such tradeoffs, enabling more informed decision making. Our objective was to estimate the societal cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic alternatives in the first- to third-line sequences of single-agent chemotherapy regimens among patients with endocrine-refractory or triple-negative mBC.

METHODS

Using three dynamic microsimulation models of 10,000 patients each, three cohorts were simulated, based upon prior chemotherapy exposure: (1) unexposed to either taxane or anthracycline, (2) taxane- and anthracycline-exposed, and (3) taxane-exposed/anthracycline-naive. We focused on the following single-agent chemotherapy regimens as reasonable and commonly used options in the first three lines of therapy for each cohort, based upon feedback from oncologists treating endocrine-refractory or triple-negative mBC: (1) for taxane- and anthracycline-unexposed patients, paclitaxel, capecitabine (CAPE), or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin; (2) for taxane- and anthracycline-exposed patients, Eribulin, CAPE, or carboplatin; and (3) for taxane-exposed/anthracycline-naive patients, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, CAPE, or Eribulin.

RESULTS

In each cohort, accumulated quality-adjusted life-years were similar between regimens, but total societal costs varied considerably. Sequences beginning first-line treatment with paclitaxel, carboplatin, and CAPE, respectively, for cohorts 1, 2, and 3, had lower costs and similar or slightly better outcomes compared with alternative options.

CONCLUSION

In this setting where multiple single-agent chemotherapy options are recommended by clinical guidelines and share similar survival and adverse event trajectories, treatment sequencing approaches that minimize costs early may improve the value of care.

Repeated dosing improves oncolytic rhabdovirus therapy in mice via interactions with intravascular monocytes

There is debate in the field of oncolytic virus (OV) therapy, whether a single viral dose, or multiple administrations, is better for tumor control. Using intravital microscopy, we describe the fate of vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) delivered systemically as a first or a second dose. Following primary administration, VSV binds to the endothelium, initiates tumor infection and activates a proinflammatory response. This initial OV dose induces neutrophil migration into the tumor and limits viral replication. OV administered as a second dose fails to infect the tumor and is captured by intravascular monocytes. Despite a lack of direct infection, this second viral dose, in a monocyte-dependent fashion, enhances and sustains infection by the first viral dose, promotes CD8 T cell recruitment, delays tumor growth and improves survival in multi-dosing OV therapy. Thus, repeated VSV dosing engages monocytes to post-condition the tumor microenvironment for improved infection and anticancer T cell responses. Understanding the complex interactions between the subsequent viral doses is crucial for improving the efficiency of OV therapy and virus-based vaccines.

Phase 2 trial of intravenous oncolytic virus JX-594 combined with low-dose cyclophosphamide in patients with advanced breast cancer

Breast cancer is one the most common cause of cancer death in women worldwide. We report here the first phase II study investigating a virus genetically engineered for tumor-selective replication in patients with breast cancer. Ten patients were treated with a combination of low-dose oral cyclophosphamide and intra-venous JX-594, a thymidine kinase gene-inactivated oncolytic vaccinia virus engineered for the expression of transgenes encoding human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and β-galactosidase. Best response as per RECIST criteria was stable disease for 2 patients and progressive disease for 8 patients. Median progression-free and overall survival were 1.6 months (95% CI: [1.1-1.9]) and 14.4 months (95% CI: [2.0 - NA]) respectively. High throughput analysis of sequential plasma samples revealed an upregulation of protein biomarkers reflecting immune induction such as IFN gamma. Whether the combination of JX-594 with an immune checkpoint inhibitor is associated with meaningful clinical activity is therefore worth to investigate.

Efficacy and safety of oncolytic virus combined with chemotherapy or immune checkpoint inhibitors in solid tumor patients: A meta-analysis

Background: In recent years, several clinical trials have focused on oncolytic virus (OVs) combined with chemotherapy or immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in solid tumor patients, which showed encouraging effects. However, few studies have concentrated on the summary on the safety and efficacy of the combined treatments. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to explore the safety and curative effect of the combined therapy. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases to comprehensively select articles on OVs combined with chemotherapy or ICIs for the solid tumor treatment. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), 1-year survival rate, 2-year survival rate, objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) were the outcomes. Results: Fifteen studies with 903 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled ORR was 32% [95% confidence interval (CI): 27-36%, I2 = 24.9%, p = 0.239]. Median OS and median PFS were 6.79 months (CI: 4.29-9.30, I2 = 62.9%, p = 0.044) and 3.40 months (CI: 2.59-4.22, I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.715), respectively. The 1-year survival rate was 38% (CI: 0.29-0.47, I2 = 62.9%, p = 0.044), and the 2-year survival rate was 24% (CI: 12-37%, I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.805). The most common AEs were fever (63%, CI: 57-69%, I2 = 2.3%, p = 0.402), fatigue (58%, CI: 51-65%, I2 = 49.2%, p = 0.096), chill (52%, CI: 43-60%, I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.958), and neutropenia (53%, CI: 47-60%, I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.944). Conclusion: OVs combined with ICIs showed a better efficacy than OVs combined with chemotherapy, which lends support to further clinical trials of OVs combined with ICIs. In addition, OVs combined with pembrolizumab can exert increased safety and efficacy. The toxicity of grades ≥3 should be carefully monitored and observed. However, high-quality, large-scale clinical trials should be completed to further confirm the efficacy and safety of OVs combined with ICIs. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/login.php], identifier [RD42022348568].

Immunotherapy in triple negative breast cancer: beyond checkpoint inhibitors

The development of immunotherapy agents has revolutionized the field of oncology. The only FDA-approved immunotherapeutic approach in breast cancer consists of immune checkpoint inhibitors, yet several novel immune-modulatory strategies are being actively studied and appear promising. Innovative immunotherapeutic strategies are urgently needed in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), a subtype of breast cancer known for its poor prognosis and its resistance to conventional treatments. TNBC is more primed to respond to immunotherapy given the presence of more tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, higher PD-L1 expression, and higher tumor mutation burden relative to the other breast cancer subtypes, and therefore, immuno-oncology represents a key area of promise for TNBC research. The aim of this review is to highlight current data and ongoing efforts to establish the safety and efficacy of immunotherapeutic approaches beyond checkpoint inhibitors in TNBC.

Current landscape and perspective of oncolytic viruses and their combination therapies

•

Oncolytic virotherapy has become an important branch of cancer immunotherapy in clinical practice.

•

Multiple viruses can be engineered to be OVs and armed with anticancer genes to enhance their efficacy.

•

OVs can reshape TME and produce synergistic anticancer efficacy when combined with other therapies.

•

Safety and effectiveness are the main direction of future research and development of OVs.

Oncolytic virotherapy has become an important strategy in cancer immunotherapy. Oncolytic virus (OV) can reshape the tumor microenvironment (TME) through its replication-mediated oncolysis and transgene-produced anticancer effect, inducing an antitumor immune response and creating favorable conditions for the combination of other therapeutic measures. Extensive preclinical and clinical data have suggested that OV-based combination therapy has definite efficacy and promising prospects. Recently, several clinical trials of oncolytic virotherapy combined with immunotherapy have made breakthroughs. This review comprehensively elaborates the OV types and their targeting mechanisms, the selection of anticancer genes armed in OVs, and the therapeutic modes of action and strategies of OVs to provide a theoretical basis for the better design and construction of OVs and the optimization of OV-based therapeutic strategies.

Modern approaches to treating cancer with oncolytic viruses

According to the World Health Organization, cancer is the second leading cause of death in the world. This serves as a powerful incentive to search for new effective cancer treatments. Development of new oncolytic viruses capable of selectively destroying cancer cells is one of the modern approaches to cancer treatment. The advantage of this method – the selective lysis of tumor cells with the help of viruses – leads to an increase in the antitumor immune response of the body, that in turn promotes the destruction of the primary tumor and its metastases. Significant progress in development of this method has been achieved in the last decade. In this review we analyze the literature data on families of oncolytic viruses that have demonstrated a positive therapeutic effect against malignant neoplasms in various localizations. We discuss the main mechanisms of the oncolytic action of viruses and assess their advantages over other methods of cancer therapy as well as the prospects for their use in clinical practice.

Preclinical safety assessment of MV-s-NAP, a novel oncolytic measles virus strain armed with an H . pylori immunostimulatory bacterial transgene

Despite recent therapeutic advances, metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remains incurable. Engineered measles virus (MV) constructs based on the attenuated MV Edmonston vaccine platform have demonstrated significant oncolytic activity against solid tumors. The Helicobacter pylori neutrophil-activating protein (NAP) is responsible for the robust inflammatory reaction in gastroduodenal mucosa during bacterial infection. NAP attracts and activates immune cells at the site of infection, inducing expression of pro-inflammatory mediators. We engineered an MV strain to express the secretory form of NAP (MV-s-NAP) and showed that it exhibits anti-tumor and immunostimulatory activity in human breast cancer xenograft models. In this study, we utilized a measles-infection-permissive mouse model (transgenic IFNAR KO-CD46Ge) to evaluate the biodistribution and safety of MV-s-NAP. The primary objective was to identify potential toxic side effects and confirm the safety of the proposed clinical doses of MV-s-NAP prior to a phase I clinical trial of intratumoral administration of MV-s-NAP in patients with MBC. Both subcutaneous delivery (corresponding to the clinical trial intratumoral administration route) and intravenous (worst case scenario) delivery of MV-s-NAP were well tolerated: no significant clinical, laboratory or histologic toxicity was observed. This outcome supports the safety of MV-s-NAP for oncolytic virotherapy of MBC. The first-in-human clinical trial of MV-s-NAP in patients with MBC (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04521764) was subsequently activated.

Strategies for Advanced Oncolytic Virotherapy: Current Technology Innovations and Clinical Approaches

Oncolytic virotherapy is a type of nanomedicine with a dual antitumor mechanism. Viruses are engineered to selectively infect and lyse cancer cells directly, leading to the release of soluble antigens which induce systemic antitumor immunity. Representative drug Talimogene laherparepvec has showed promising therapeutic effects in advanced melanoma, especially when combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors with moderate adverse effects. Diverse viruses like herpes simplex virus, adenovirus, vaccina virus, and so on could be engineered as vectors to express different transgenic payloads, vastly expanding the therapeutic potential of oncolytic virotherapy. A number of related clinical trials are under way which are mainly focusing on solid tumors. Studies about further optimizing the genome of oncolytic viruses or improving the delivering system are in the hotspot, indicating the future development of oncolytic virotherapy in the clinic. This review introduces the latest progress in clinical trials and pre-clinical studies as well as technology innovations directed at oncolytic viruses. The challenges and perspectives of oncolytic virotherapy towards clinical application are also discussed.

Current clinical landscape of oncolytic viruses as novel cancer immunotherapeutic and recent preclinical advancements

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) have been gaining attention in the pharmaceutical industry as a novel immunotherapeutic and therapeutic adjuvant due to their ability to induce and boost antitumor immunity through multiple mechanisms. First, intrinsic mechanisms of OVs that enable exploitation of the host immune system (e.g., evading immune detection) can nullify the immune escape mechanism of tumors. Second, many types of OVs have been shown to cause direct lysis of tumor cells, resulting in an induction of tumor-specific T cell response mediated by release of tumor-associated antigens and danger signal molecules. Third, armed OV-expressing immune stimulatory therapeutic genes could be highly expressed in tumor tissues to further improve antitumor immunity. Last, these OVs can inflame cold tumors and their microenvironment to be more immunologically favorable for other immunotherapeutics. Due to these unique characteristics, OVs have been tested as an adjuvant of choice in a variety of therapeutics. In light of these promising attributes of OVs in the immune-oncology field, the present review will examine OVs in clinical development and discuss various strategies that are being explored in preclinical stages for the next generation of OVs that are optimized for immunotherapy applications.

GOBLET: a phase I/II study of pelareorep and atezolizumab +/- chemo in advanced or metastatic gastrointestinal cancers

Most gastrointestinal (GI) cancers have microsatellite-stable (MSS) tumors, which have an immunologically 'cold' phenotype with fewer genetic mutations, reduced immune cell infiltration and downregulated immune checkpoint proteins. These attributes make MSS tumors resistant to conventional immunotherapy including checkpoint blockade therapy. Pelareorep is a naturally occurring, nongenetically modified reovirus. Upon intravenous administration, pelareorep selectively kills tumor cells and promotes several immunologic changes that prime tumors to respond to checkpoint blockade therapy. Given its demonstrated synergy with checkpoint blockade, as well as its encouraging efficacy in prior GI cancer studies, pelareorep plus atezolizumab will be evaluated in the GOBLET study in multiple GI cancer indications.

Engaging Pattern Recognition Receptors in Solid Tumors to Generate Systemic Antitumor Immunity

Malignant tumors frequently exploit innate immunity to evade immune surveillance. The priming, function, and polarization of antitumor immunity fundamentally depends upon context provided by the innate immune system, particularly antigen presenting cells. Such context is determined in large part by sensing of pathogen specific and damage associated features by pathogen recognition receptors (PRRs). PRR activation induces the delivery of T cell priming cues (e.g. chemokines, co-stimulatory ligands, and cytokines) from antigen presenting cells, playing a decisive role in the cancer immunity cycle. Indeed, endogenous PRR activation within the tumor microenvironment (TME) has been shown to generate spontaneous antitumor T cell immunity, e.g., cGAS-STING mediated activation of antigen presenting cells after release of DNA from dying tumor cells. Thus, instigating intratumor PRR activation, particularly with the goal of generating Th1-promoting inflammation that stokes endogenous priming of antitumor CD8⁺ T cells, is a growing area of clinical investigation. This approach is analogous to in situ vaccination, ultimately providing a personalized antitumor response against relevant tumor associated antigens. Here I discuss clinical stage intratumor modalities that function via activation of PRRs. These approaches are being tested in various solid tumor contexts including melanoma, colorectal cancer, glioblastoma, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, bladder cancer, and pancreatic cancer. Their mechanism (s) of action relative to other immunotherapy approaches (e.g., antigen-defined cancer vaccines, CAR T cells, dendritic cell vaccines, and immune checkpoint blockade), as well as their potential to complement these approaches are also discussed. Examples to be reviewed include TLR agonists, STING agonists, RIG-I agonists, and attenuated or engineered viruses and bacterium. I also review common key requirements for effective in situ immune activation, discuss differences between various strategies inclusive of mechanisms that may ultimately limit or preclude antitumor efficacy, and provide a summary of relevant clinical data.

Immune-Based Therapy in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: From Molecular Biology to Clinical Practice

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has been considered for many years an orphan disease in terms of therapeutic options, with conventional chemotherapy (CT) still representing the mainstay of treatment in the majority of patients. Although breast cancer (BC) has been historically considered a "cold tumor", exciting progress in the genomic field leading to the characterization of the molecular portrait and the immune profile of TNBC has opened the door to novel therapeutic strategies, including Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs), Poly ADP-Ribose Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and Antibody Drug Conjugates (ADCs). In particular, compared to standard CT, the immune-based approach has been demonstrated to improve progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in metastatic PD-L1-positive TNBC and the pathological complete response rate in the early setting, regardless of PD-L1 expression. To date, PD-L1 has been widely used as a predictor of the response to ICIs; however, many patients do not benefit from the addition of immunotherapy. Therefore, PD-L1 is not a reliable predictive biomarker of the response, and its accuracy remains controversial due to the lack of a consensus about the assay, the antibody, and the scoring system to adopt, as well as the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of the PD-L1 status. In the precision medicine era, there is an urgent need to identify more sensitive biomarkers in the BC immune oncology field other than just PD-L1 expression. Through the characterization of the tumor microenvironment (TME), the analysis of peripheral blood and the evaluation of immune gene signatures, novel potential biomarkers have been explored, such as the Tumor Mutational Burden (TMB), Microsatellite Instability/Mismatch Repair Deficiency (MSI/dMMR) status, genomic and epigenomic alterations and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). This review aims to summarize the recent knowledge on BC immunograms and on the biomarkers proposed to support ICI-based therapy in TNBC, as well as to provide an overview of the potential strategies to enhance the immune response in order to overcome the mechanisms of resistance.

Breast Cancer Stem-Like Cells in Drug Resistance: A Review of Mechanisms and Novel Therapeutic Strategies to Overcome Drug Resistance

Breast cancer is the most frequent type of malignancy in women worldwide, and drug resistance to the available systemic therapies remains a major challenge. At the molecular level, breast cancer is heterogeneous, where the cancer-initiating stem-like cells (bCSCs) comprise a small yet distinct population of cells within the tumor microenvironment (TME) that can differentiate into cells of multiple lineages, displaying varying degrees of cellular differentiation, enhanced metastatic potential, invasiveness, and resistance to radio- and chemotherapy. Based on the expression of estrogen and progesterone hormone receptors, expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and/or BRCA mutations, the breast cancer molecular subtypes are identified as TNBC, HER2 enriched, luminal A, and luminal B. Management of breast cancer primarily involves resection of the tumor, followed by radiotherapy, and systemic therapies including endocrine therapies for hormone-responsive breast cancers; HER2-targeted therapy for HER2-enriched breast cancers; chemotherapy and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for TNBC, and the recent development of immunotherapy. However, the complex crosstalk between the malignant cells and stromal cells in the breast TME, rewiring of the many different signaling networks, and bCSC-mediated processes, all contribute to overall drug resistance in breast cancer. However, strategically targeting bCSCs to reverse chemoresistance and increase drug sensitivity is an underexplored stream in breast cancer research. The recent identification of dysregulated miRNAs/ncRNAs/mRNAs signatures in bCSCs and their crosstalk with many cellular signaling pathways has uncovered promising molecular leads to be used as potential therapeutic targets in drug-resistant situations. Moreover, therapies that can induce alternate forms of regulated cell death including ferroptosis, pyroptosis, and immunotherapy; drugs targeting bCSC metabolism; and nanoparticle therapy are the upcoming approaches to target the bCSCs overcome drug resistance. Thus, individualizing treatment strategies will eliminate the minimal residual disease, resulting in better pathological and complete response in drug-resistant scenarios. This review summarizes basic understanding of breast cancer subtypes, concept of bCSCs, molecular basis of drug resistance, dysregulated miRNAs/ncRNAs patterns in bCSCs, and future perspective of developing anticancer therapeutics to address breast cancer drug resistance.

Emerging systemic delivery strategies of oncolytic viruses: A key step toward cancer immunotherapy

Oncolytic virotherapy (OVT) is a novel type of immunotherapy that induces anti-tumor responses through selective self-replication within cancer cells and oncolytic virus (OV)-mediated immunostimulation. Notably, talimogene laherparepvec (T-Vec) developed by the Amgen company in 2015, is the first FDA-approved OV product to be administered via intratumoral injection and has been the most successful OVT treatment. However, the systemic administration of OVs still faces huge challenges, including in vivo pre-existing neutralizing antibodies and poor targeting delivery efficacy. Recently, state-of-the-art progress has been made in the development of systemic delivery of OVs, which demonstrates a promising step toward broadening the scope of cancer immunotherapy and improving the clinical efficacy of OV delivery. Herein, this review describes the general characteristics of OVs, focusing on the action mechanisms of OVs as well as the advantages and disadvantages of OVT. The emerging multiple systemic administration approaches of OVs are summarized in the past five years. In addition, the combination treatments between OVT and traditional therapies (chemotherapy, thermotherapy, immunotherapy, and radiotherapy, etc.) are highlighted. Last but not least, the future prospects and challenges of OVT are also discussed, with the aim of facilitating medical researchers to extensively apply the OVT in the cancer therapy.

Clinical Trials of Oncolytic Viruses in Breast Cancer

Breast cancer is the second most common kind of cancer worldwide and oncolytic viruses may offer a new treatment approach. There are three different types of oncolytic viruses used in clinical trials; (i) oncolytic viruses with natural anti-neoplastic properties; (ii) oncolytic viruses designed for tumor-selective replication; (iii) oncolytic viruses modified to activate the immune system. Currently, fourteen different oncolytic viruses have been investigated in eighteen published clinical trials. These trials demonstrate that oncolytic viruses are well tolerated and safe for use in patients and display clinical activity. However, these trials mainly studied a small number of patients with different advanced tumors including some with breast cancer. Future trials should focus on breast cancer and investigate optimal routes of administration, occurrence of neutralizing antibodies, viral gene expression, combinations with other antineoplastic therapies, and identify subtypes that are particularly suitable for oncolytic virotherapy.

Reconstituting Immune Surveillance in Breast Cancer: Molecular Pathophysiology and Current Immunotherapy Strategies

Over the past 50 years, breast cancer immunotherapy has emerged as an active field of research, generating novel, targeted treatments for the disease. Immunotherapies carry enormous potential to improve survival in breast cancer, particularly for the subtypes carrying the poorest prognoses. Here, we review the mechanisms by which cancer evades immune destruction as well as the history of breast cancer immunotherapies and recent developments, including clinical trials that have shaped the treatment of the disease with a focus on cell therapies, vaccines, checkpoint inhibitors, and oncolytic viruses.

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.

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.

Oncolytic Virotherapy Treatment of Breast Cancer: Barriers and Recent Advances

Oncolytic virotherapy (OV) is an emerging class of immunotherapeutic drugs. Their mechanism of action is two-fold: direct cell lysis and unmasking of the cancer through immunogenic cell death, which allows the immune system to recognize and eradicate tumours. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and is challenging to treat with immunotherapy modalities because it is classically an immunogenically "cold" tumour type. This provides an attractive niche for OV, given viruses have been shown to turn "cold" tumours "hot," thereby opening a plethora of treatment opportunities. There has been a number of pre-clinical attempts to explore the use of OV in breast cancer; however, these have not led to any meaningful clinical trials. This review considers both the potential and the barriers to OV in breast cancer, namely, the limitations of monotherapy and the scope for combination therapy, improving viral delivery and challenges specific to the breast cancer population (e.g., tumour subtype, menopausal status, age).

Current strategies of virotherapy in clinical trials for cancer treatment

As a novel immune-active agent for cancer treatment, viruses have the ability of infecting and replicating in tumor cells. The safety and efficacy of viruses has been tested and confirmed in preclinical and clinical trials. In the last decade, virotherapy has been adopted as a monotherapy or combined therapy with immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy, showing promising outcomes against cancer. In this review, the current strategies of viruses used in clinical trials are classified and described. Besides this, the challenge and future prospects of virotherapy in the management for cancer patients are discussed in this review.

Oncolytic Virotherapy in Solid Tumors: The Challenges and Achievements

Oncolytic virotherapy (OVT) is a promising approach in cancer immunotherapy. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) could be applied in cancer immunotherapy without in-depth knowledge of tumor antigens. The capability of genetic modification makes OVs exciting therapeutic tools with a high potential for manipulation. Improving efficacy, employing immunostimulatory elements, changing the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) to inflammatory TME, optimizing their delivery system, and increasing the safety are the main areas of OVs manipulations. Recently, the reciprocal interaction of OVs and TME has become a hot topic for investigators to enhance the efficacy of OVT with less off-target adverse events. Current investigations suggest that the main application of OVT is to provoke the antitumor immune response in the TME, which synergize the effects of other immunotherapies such as immune-checkpoint blockers and adoptive cell therapy. In this review, we focused on the effects of OVs on the TME and antitumor immune responses. Furthermore, OVT challenges, including its moderate efficiency, safety concerns, and delivery strategies, along with recent achievements to overcome challenges, are thoroughly discussed.

Oncolytic virotherapy: new weapon for breast cancer treatment

The recent introduction of viruses as a weapon against cancer can be regarded as one of the most intriguing approaches in the context of precision medicine. The role of immune checkpoint inhibitors has been extensively studied in early and advanced cancer stages, with extraordinary results. Although there is a good tolerability profile, especially when compared with conventional chemotherapy, severe immune-related adverse events have emerged as a potential limitation. Moreover, there are still treatment-resistant cases and thus further treatment options need to be implemented. Several in vitro and in vivo studies have been conducted and are ongoing to develop oncolytic viruses (OVs) as a tool to modulate the immune system response. OVs are attenuated viruses that can kill cancer cells after having infected them, producing microenvironment remodelling and antitumour immune response. The potential of oncolytic virotherapy is to contrast the absence of T cell infiltrates, converting ‘cold’ tumours into ‘hot’ ones, thus improving the performance of the immune system. Breast cancer, the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths among women, is considered a ‘cold’ tumour. In this context, oncolytic virotherapy might well be considered as a promising strategy. This review summarises the current status, clinical applications and future development of OVs, focusing on breast cancer treatment.

Viroimmunotherapy for breast cancer: promises, problems and future directions

Virotherapy, a strategy to use live viruses as therapeutics, is a relatively novel field in the treatment of cancer. With the advancements in molecular biology and virology, there has been a huge increase in research on cancer virotherapy. For the treatment of cancer, viruses could be used either as vectors in gene therapy or as oncolytic agents. A variety of viruses have been studied for their potential usage in gene therapy or oncolytic therapy. In this review, we discuss virotherapy with a special focus on breast cancer. Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in women worldwide. Current treatments are insufficient to cure metastatic breast cancer and are often associated with severe side effects that further deteriorates patients' quality of life. Therefore, novel therapeutic approaches such as virotherapy need to be developed for the treatment of breast cancer. Here we summarize the current treatments for breast cancer and the potential use of virotherapy in the treatment of the disease. Furthermore, we discuss the use of oncolytic viruses as immunotherapeutics and the rational combination of oncolytic viruses with other therapeutics for optimal treatment of breast cancer. Finally, we outline the progress made in virotherapy for breast cancer and the shortcomings that need to be addressed for this novel therapy to move to the clinic for better treatment of breast cancer.

Generation of an Oncolytic Herpes Simplex Viral Vector Completely Retargeted to the GDNF Receptor GFRα1 for Specific Infection of Breast Cancer Cells

Oncolytic herpes simplex viruses (oHSV) are under development for the treatment of a variety of human cancers, including breast cancer, a leading cause of cancer mortality among women worldwide. Here we report the design of a fully retargeted oHSV for preferential infection of breast cancer cells through virus recognition of GFRα1, the cellular receptor for glial cell-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF). GFRα1 displays a limited expression profile in normal adult tissue, but is upregulated in a subset of breast cancers. We generated a recombinant HSV expressing a completely retargeted glycoprotein D (gD), the viral attachment/entry protein, that incorporates pre-pro-GDNF in place of the signal peptide and HVEM binding domain of gD and contains a deletion of amino acid 38 to eliminate nectin-1 binding. We show that GFRα1 is necessary and sufficient for infection by the purified recombinant virus. Moreover, this virus enters and spreads in GFRα1-positive breast cancer cells in vitro and caused tumor regression upon intratumoral injection in vivo. Given the heterogeneity observed between and within individual breast cancers at the molecular level, these results expand our ability to deliver oHSV to specific tumors and suggest opportunities to enhance drug or viral treatments aimed at other receptors.

Generation of Genetically RGD σ1-Modified Oncolytic Reovirus That Enhances JAM-A-Independent Infection of Tumor Cells

Mammalian reovirus (MRV) strain type 3 Dearing (T3D) is a naturally occurring oncolytic virus that has been developed as a potential cancer therapeutic. However, MRV treatment cannot be applied to cancer cells expressing low levels of junctional adhesion molecule A (JAM-A), which is the entry receptor of MRV. In this study, we developed a reverse genetics system for MRV strain T3D-L, which showed high oncolytic potency. To modify the cell tropism of MRV, an arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) peptide with an affinity to integrin was inserted at the C terminus or loop structures of the viral cell attachment protein σ1. The recombinant RGD σ1-modified viruses induced remarkable cell lysis in human cancer cell lines with marginal JAM-A expression and in JAM-A knockout cancer cell lines generated by a CRISPR/Cas9 system. Pretreatment of cells with anti-integrin antibody decreased cell death caused by the RGD σ1-modified virus, suggesting the infection to the cells was via a specific interaction with integrin αV. By using mouse models, we assessed virulence of the RGD σ1-modified viruses in vivo This system will open new avenues for the use of genetically modified oncolytic MRV for use as a cancer therapy.IMPORTANCE Oncolytic viruses kill tumors without affecting normal cells. A variety of oncolytic viruses are used as cancer therapeutics. Mammalian reovirus (MRV), which belongs to the genus Orthoreovirus, family Reoviridae, is one such natural oncolytic virus. The anticancer effects of MRV are being evaluated in clinical trials. Unlike other oncolytic viruses, MRV has not been genetically modified for use as a cancer therapeutic in clinical trials. Here, we used a reverse genetic approach to introduce an integrin-affinity peptide sequence into the MRV cell attachment protein σ1 to alter the natural tropism of the virus. The recombinant viruses were able to infect cancer cell lines expressing very low levels of the MRV entry receptor, junctional adhesion molecule A (JAM-A), and cause tumor cell death while maintaining its original tropism via JAM-A. This is a novel report of a genetically modified oncolytic MRV by introducing a peptide sequence into σ1.

Oncolytic virus combined with traditional treatment versus traditional treatment alone in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oncolytic virus therapy has shown benefits for multiple cancers, while limitations remain for traditional treatment. However, few studies have concentrated on comparing whether oncolytic virus combined with traditional treatment is better than traditional treatment alone in patients with cancer. We conducted a meta-analysis of the curative effect and safety of oncolytic virus combination therapy.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases comprehensively for articles comparing oncolytic virus combined with traditional treatment to traditional treatment alone in patients with cancer. A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies involving 1494 patients (combination therapy group, 820 patients; traditional treatment group, 674 patients) were included in the study. Compared with traditional treatment alone, combination therapy was significantly associated with high objective response rate [odds ratio (OR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.82, p = 0.04]. There were no significant differences for other outcomes such as 1- and 2-year survival rate, and 4- and 12-month progression-free survival rate. Combination therapy was significantly associated with high incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse effects (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.06-2.05, p = 0.02) and high incidence of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.13-2.43, p = 0.01). There were no significant differences for other grade ≥ 3 adverse effects, e.g., gastrointestinal adverse effects, influenza-like illness, fatigue, anemia, and thrombocytopenia.

CONCLUSION

Despite partially increased toxicity, the combination therapy improves the effectiveness of cancer treatment. However, high-quality, large-scale studies are needed to evaluate its effectiveness and safety.

Clinical Application of Oncolytic Viruses: A Systematic Review

Leveraging the immune system to thwart cancer is not a novel strategy and has been explored via cancer vaccines and use of immunomodulators like interferons. However, it was not until the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors that we realized the true potential of immunotherapy in combating cancer. Oncolytic viruses are one such immunotherapeutic tool that is currently being explored in cancer therapeutics. We present the most comprehensive systematic review of all oncolytic viruses in Phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials published to date. We performed a systematic review of all published clinical trials indexed in PubMed that utilized oncolytic viruses. Trials were reviewed for type of oncolytic virus used, method of administration, study design, disease type, primary outcome, and relevant adverse effects. A total of 120 trials were found; 86 trials were available for our review. Included were 60 phase I trials, five phase I/II combination trials, 19 phase II trials, and two phase III clinical trials. Oncolytic viruses are feverously being evaluated in oncology with over 30 different types of oncolytic viruses being explored either as a single agent or in combination with other antitumor agents. To date, only one oncolytic virus therapy has received an FDA approval but advances in bioengineering techniques and our understanding of immunomodulation to heighten oncolytic virus replication and improve tumor kill raises optimism for its future drug development.

Determinants of the efficacy of viro-immunotherapy: A review

Oncolytic virus immunotherapy is rapidly gaining interest in the field of immunotherapy against cancer. The minimal toxicity upon treatment and the dual activity of direct oncolysis and immune activation make therapy with oncolytic viruses (OVs) an interesting treatment modality. The safety and efficacy of several OVs have been assessed in clinical trials and, so far, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved one OV. Unfortunately, most treatments with OVs have shown suboptimal responses in clinical trials, while they appeared more promising in preclinical studies, with tumours reducing after immune cell influx. In several clinical trials with OVs, parameters such as virus replication, virus-specific antibodies, systemic immune responses, immune cell influx into tumours and tumour-specific antibodies have been studied as predictors or correlates of therapy efficacy. In this review, these studies are summarized to improve our understanding of the determinants of the efficacy of OV therapies in humans and to provide insights for future developments in the viro-immunotherapy treatment field.

Multidirectional Strategies for Targeted Delivery of Oncolytic Viruses by Tumor Infiltrating Immune Cells

Oncolytic virus (OV) immunotherapy has demonstrated to be a promising approach in cancer treatment due to tumor-specific oncolysis. However, their clinical use so far has been largely limited due to the lack of suitable delivery strategies with high efficacy. Direct 'intratumoral' injection is the way to cross the hurdles of systemic toxicity, while providing local effects. Progress in this field has enabled the development of alternative way using 'systemic' oncolytic virotherapy for producing better results. One major potential roadblock to systemic OV delivery is the low virus persistence in the face of hostile immune system. The delivery challenge is even greater when attempting to target the oncolytic viruses into the entire tumor mass, where not all tumor cells are equally exposed to exactly the same microenvironment. The microenvironment of many tumors is known to be massively infiltrated with various types of leucocytes in both primary and metastatic sites. Interestingly, this intratumoral immune cell heterogeneity exhibits a degree of organized distribution inside the tumor bed as evidenced, for example, by the hypoxic tumor microenviroment where predominantly recruits tumor-associated macrophages. Although in vivo OV delivery seems complicated and challenging, recent results are encouraging for decreasing the limitations of systemically administered oncolytic viruses and an improved efficiency of oncolytic viral therapy in targeting cancerous tissues in vitro. Here, we review the latest developments of carrier cell-based oncolytic virus delivery using tumor-infiltrating immune cells with a focus on the main features of each cellular vehicle.

Efficacy and Safety of Oncolytic Viruses in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Oncolytic virotherapy is a promising antitumor therapeutic strategy. It is based on the ability of viruses to selectively kill cancer cells and induce host antitumor immune responses. However, the clinical outcomes of oncolytic viruses (OVs) vary widely. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to illustrate the efficacy and safety of oncolytic viruses. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to 31 January 2020. The data for objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were independently extracted by two investigators from 11 studies that met the inclusion criteria. In subgroup analyses, the objective response rate benefit was observed in patients treated with oncolytic DNA viruses (odds ratio (OR) = 4.05; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.96–8.33; p = 0.0002), but not in those treated with oncolytic RNA viruses (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.66–1.52, p = 0.99). Moreover, the intratumoral injection arm yielded a statistically significant improvement (OR = 4.05, 95% CI: 1.96–8.33, p = 0.0002), but no such improvement was observed for the intravenous injection arm (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.66–1.52, p = 0.99). Among the five OVs investigated in RCTs, only talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) effectively prolonged the OS of patients (hazard ratio (HR), 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63–0.99; p = 0.04). None of the oncolytic virotherapies improved the PFS (HR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.85–1.19, p = 0.96). Notably, the pooled rate of severe AEs (grade ≥3) was higher for the oncolytic virotherapy group (39%) compared with the control group (27%) (risk difference (RD), 12%; risk ratio (RR), 1.44; 95% CI: 1.17–1.78; p = 0.0006). This review offers a reference for fundamental research and clinical treatment of oncolytic viruses. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to verify these results.

Breast Tumor-Associated Metalloproteases Restrict Reovirus Oncolysis by Cleaving the σ1 Cell Attachment Protein and Can Be Overcome by Mutation of σ1

Reovirus is undergoing clinical testing as an oncolytic therapy for breast cancer. Given that reovirus naturally evolved to thrive in enteric environments, we sought to better understand how breast tumor microenvironments impinge on reovirus infection. Reovirus was treated with extracellular extracts generated from polyomavirus middle T-antigen-derived mouse breast tumors. Unexpectedly, these breast tumor extracellular extracts inactivated reovirus, reducing infectivity of reovirus particles by 100-fold. Mechanistically, inactivation was attributed to proteolytic cleavage of the viral cell attachment protein σ1, which diminished virus binding to sialic acid (SA)-low tumor cells. Among various specific protease class inhibitors and metal ions, EDTA and ZnCl₂ effectively modulated σ1 cleavage, indicating that breast tumor-associated zinc-dependent metalloproteases are responsible for reovirus inactivation. Moreover, media from MCF7, MB468, MD-MB-231, and HS578T breast cancer cell lines recapitulated σ1 cleavage and reovirus inactivation, suggesting that inactivation of reovirus is shared among mouse and human breast cancers and that breast cancer cells by themselves can be a source of reovirus-inactivating proteases. Binding assays and quantification of SA levels on a panel of cancer cells showed that truncated σ1 reduced virus binding to cells with low surface SA. To overcome this restriction, we generated a reovirus mutant with a mutation (T249I) in σ1 that prevents σ1 cleavage and inactivation by breast tumor-associated proteases. The mutant reovirus showed similar replication kinetics in tumorigenic cells, toxicity equivalent to that of wild-type reovirus in a severely compromised mouse model, and increased tumor titers. Overall, the data show that tumor microenvironments have the potential to reduce infectivity of reovirus.IMPORTANCE We demonstrate that metalloproteases in breast tumor microenvironments can inactivate reovirus. Our findings expose that tumor microenvironment proteases could have a negative impact on proteinaceous cancer therapies, such as reovirus, and that modification of such therapies to circumvent inactivation by tumor metalloproteases merits consideration.