A Randomized Phase II Study of FOLFOX6/Bevacizumab With or Without Pelareorep in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: IND.210, a Canadian Cancer Trials Group Trial

First line therapy in stage IV BRAF mutated colorectal cancer

Introduction

The molecular profile of colorectal cancer (CRC) plays a crucial role in understanding patient prognosis and treatment response. Within CRC, a distinct subgroup can be identified by the presence of the BRAF V600E mutation. This specific mutation, classified as Class I of BRAF mutations, is known to be associated with a poor prognosis and resistance to standard therapy. To determine the most effective treatment approach for this specific subgroup of CRC, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare various pharmacological interventions and evaluate their relative effectiveness in BRAF-mutated CRCs.

Materials and methods

On July 31, 2023, we conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) reporting of outcomes in patients with BRAF-mutated CRC who underwent first-line chemotherapy; 2) reporting of survival information as hazard ratios (HR); and 3) publication in English. The data were combined using HRs for overall and progression-free survival (OS and PFS) using random-effects models. NMA was performed under the Bayesian framework, utilizing the GeMTC package. The relative rankings of the treatments were determined using SUCRA scores.

Results

A total of 16 studies were included. When compared to standard chemotherapy (CT) doublets (such as FOLFOX or FOLFIRI), none of the comparison arms demonstrated a gain in OS. CT doublet + bevacizumab did not show significant superiority over either CT doublet alone or 5FU/capecitabine + bevacizumab. FOLFOXIRI and FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab did not show superiority over any other treatment schedule that was compared. CT doublets + bevacizumab had the highest SUCRA score (0.87), followed by single-agent fluoropyrimidines + bevacizumab (0.61), and FOLFOXIRI (0.56). Regarding PFS, no regimen was found to be superior to the combination of CT doublet plus bevacizumab. However, FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab + atezolizumab showed a tendency towards better results (HR = 0.26, 95 % CI 0.05-1.1).

Conclusions

Our review suggests that a CT doublet with bevacizumab is the most favorable option for OS. However, a reasonable alternative could be a triplet CT without bevacizumab.

A network meta-analysis of efficacy and safety for first-line and maintenance therapies in patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases

Background: Evidence comparing the efficacy of different treatments for patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) receiving first-line or maintenance therapy is sparse. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of these treatments, with a distinct focus on evaluating first-line and maintenance treatments separately. Methods: We conducted Bayesian network meta-analyses, sourcing English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through July 2023 from databases including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and key conference proceedings. Phase Ⅱ or Ⅲ trials that assessed two or more therapeutic regimens were included. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), adverse events graded as 3 or above (SAE), and R0 liver resection rate. Hazards Ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as effect size for OS and PFS, Odds Ratios (ORs) and 95% CI were used for ORR, SAEs and R0 resection rate. Subgroup and sensitive analyses were conducted to analysis the model uncertainty (PROSPERO: CRD42023420498). Results: 56 RCTs were included (50 for first-line treatment, six for maintenance therapies), with a total of 21,323 patients. Regarding first-line, for OS, the top three mechanisms were: local treatment + single-drug chemotherapy (SingleCT), Targeted therapy (TAR)+SingleCT, and TAR + multi-drug chemotherapy (MultiCT). Resection or ablation (R/A)+SingleCT, S1, and Cetuximab + intensified fluorouracil-based combination chemotherapy (ICTFU) were identified as the best treatments. For PFS, the top three mechanisms were: Immune therapy + TAR + MultiCT, multi-targeted therapy (MultiTAR), TAR + SingleCT. The top three treatments were: Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab + fluorouracil-based combination chemotherapy (CTFU), TAS-102+bevacizumab, Bevacizumab + ICTFU. Cetuximab + CTFU was the best choice for RAS/RAF wild-type patients. Regarding maintenance treatment, Bevacizumab + SingleCT and Adavosertib were the best options for OS and PFS, respectively. For safety, MultiCT was the safest, followed by local treatment + MultiCT, TAR + MultiCT caused the most SAEs. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy was found to be the safest among all targeted combination therapies. Conclusion: In first-line, local treatment or targeted therapsy plus chemotherapy are the best mechanisms. R/A + SingleCT or CTFU performed the best for OS, Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab + ICTFU was the best option regarding PFS. For RAS/RAF wild-type patients, Cetuximab + CTFU was the optimal option. Monotherapy may be preferred choice for maintenance treatment. Combination therapy resulted in more SAEs when compared to standard chemotherapy.

The combination therapy of oncolytic virotherapy

Introduction: Compared to other cancer immunotherapies, oncolytic viruses possess several advantages, including high killing efficiency, excellent targeting capabilities, minimal adverse reactions, and multiple pathways for tumor destruction. However, the efficacy of oncolytic viruses as a monotherapy often falls short of expectations. Consequently, combining oncolytic viruses with traditional treatments to achieve synergistic effects has emerged as a promising direction for the development of oncolytic virus therapies. Methods: This article provides a comprehensive review of the current progress in preclinical and clinical trials exploring the combination therapies involving oncolytic viruses. Results: Specifically, we discuss the combination of oncolytic viruses with immune checkpoint inhibitors, chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and cellular therapy. Discussion: The aim of this review is to offer valuable insights and references for the further advancement of these combination strategies in clinical applications. Further research is necessary to refine the design of combination therapies and explore novel strategies to maximize the therapeutic benefits offered by oncolytic viruses.

The Future of Interventions for Stage IV Colorectal Cancers

Future options for the management of stage IV colorectal cancer are primarily focused on personalized and directed therapies. Interventions include precision cancer medicine, utilizing nanocarrier platforms for directed chemotherapy, palliative pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC), adjunctive oncolytic virotherapy, and radioembolization techniques. Comprehensive genetic profiling provides specific tumor-directed therapy based on individual genetics. Biomimetic magnetic nanoparticles as chemotherapy delivery systems may reduce systemic side effects of traditional chemotherapy by targeting tumor cells and sparing healthy cells. PIPAC is a newly emerging option for patients with peritoneal metastasis from colorectal cancer and is now being used internationally, showing promising results as a palliative therapy for colorectal cancer. Oncolytic virotherapy is another emerging potential treatment option, especially when combined with standard chemotherapy and/or radiation, as well as immunotherapy. And finally, radioembolization with yttrium-90 ( 90 Y) microspheres has shown some success in treating patients with unresectable liver metastasis from colorectal cancer via selective arterial injection.

Advancements and challenges in oncolytic virus therapy for gastrointestinal tumors

BACKGROUND

Tumors of the gastrointestinal tract impose a substantial healthcare burden due to their prevalence and challenging prognosis.

METHODS

We conducted a review of peer-reviewed scientific literature using reputable databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) with a focus on oncolytic virus therapy within the context of gastrointestinal tumors. Our search covered the period up to the study's completion in June 2023.

INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA

This study includes articles from peer-reviewed scientific journals, written in English, that specifically address oncolytic virus therapy for gastrointestinal tumors, encompassing genetic engineering advances, combined therapeutic strategies, and safety and efficacy concerns. Excluded are articles not meeting these criteria or focusing on non-primary gastrointestinal metastatic tumors.

RESULTS

Our review revealed the remarkable specificity of oncolytic viruses in targeting tumor cells and their potential to enhance anti-tumor immune responses. However, challenges related to safety and efficacy persist, underscoring the need for ongoing research and improvement.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the promising role of oncolytic virus therapy in enhancing gastrointestinal tumor treatments. Continued investigation and innovative combination therapies hold the key to reducing the burden of these tumors on patients and healthcare systems.

Clinical Applications of Combined Immunotherapy Approaches in Gastrointestinal Cancer: A Case-Based Review

Malignant neoplasms arising from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract are among the most common types of cancer with high mortality rates. Despite advances in treatment in a small subgroup harboring targetable mutations, the outcome remains poor, accounting for one in three cancer-related deaths observed globally. As a promising therapeutic option in various tumor types, immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors has also been evaluated in GI cancer, albeit with limited efficacy except for a small subgroup expressing microsatellite instability. In the quest for more effective treatment options, energetic efforts have been placed to evaluate the role of several immunotherapy approaches comprising of cancer vaccines, adoptive cell therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors. In this review, we report our experience with a personalized dendritic cell cancer vaccine and cytokine-induced killer cell therapy in three patients with GI cancers and summarize current clinical data on combined immunotherapy strategies.

A new strategy for treating colorectal cancer: Regulating the influence of intestinal flora and oncolytic virus on interferon

Colorectal cancer (CRC) has the third highest incidence and the second highest mortality in the world, which seriously affects human health, while current treatments methods for CRC, including systemic therapy, preoperative radiotherapy, and surgical local excision, still have poor survival rates for patients with metastatic disease, making it critical to develop new strategies for treating CRC. In this article, we found that the gut microbiota can modulate the signaling pathways of cancer cells through direct contact with tumor cells, generate inflammatory responses and oxidative stress through interactions between the innate and adaptive immune systems, and produce diverse metabolic combinations to trigger specific immune responses and promote the initiation of systemic type I interferon (IFN-I) and anti-viral immunity. In addition, oncolytic virus-mediated immunotherapy for regulating oncolytic virus can directly lyse tumor cells, induce the immune activity of the body, interact with interferon, inhibit the anti-viral effect of IFN-I, and enhance the anti-tumor effect of IFN-II. Interferon plays an important role in the anti-tumor process. We put forward that exploring the effects of intestinal flora and oncolytic virus on interferon to treat CRC is a promising therapeutic option.

Oncolytic viruses and antibodies: are they more successful when delivered separately or when engineered as a single agent?

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) provide the promise of tumor-selective cytotoxicity coupled with amplification of the therapeutic agent (the virus) in situ within the tumor improving its therapeutic index. Despite this promise, however, single agent-treatments have not been as successful as combination therapies, particularly combining with checkpoint inhibitor antibodies. The antibodies may be delivered by two approaches, either encoded within the OV genome to restrict antibody production to sites of active virus infection or alternatively given alongside OVs as separate treatments. Both approaches have shown promising therapeutic outcomes, and this leads to an interesting question of whether one approach is potentially better than the other. In this review, we provide a brief summary of the combination OV-antibody therapies that target tumor cells, tumor microenvironment and immune cells to help define key parameters influencing which approach is superior, thereby improving insight into the rational design of OV treatment strategies.

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.

Current and emerging therapeutic approaches for colorectal cancer: A comprehensive review

Colorectal cancer (CRC) affects 1 in 23 males and 1 in 25 females, making it the third most common cancer. With roughly 608000 deaths worldwide, CRC accounts for 8% of all cancer-related deaths, making it the second most common cause of death due to cancer. Standard and conventional CRC treatments include surgical expurgation for resectable CRC and radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and their combinational regimen for non-resectable CRC. Despite these tactics, nearly half of patients develop incurable recurring CRC. Cancer cells resist the effects of chemotherapeutic drugs in a variety of ways, including drug inactivation, drug influx and efflux modifications, and ATP-binding cassette transporter overexpression. These constraints necessitate the development of new target-specific therapeutic strategies. Emerging therapeutic approaches, such as targeted immune boosting therapies, non-coding RNA-based therapies, probiotics, natural products, oncolytic viral therapies, and biomarker-driven therapies, have shown promising results in preclinical and clinical studies. We tethered the entire evolutionary trends in the development of CRC treatments in this review and discussed the potential of new therapies and how they might be used in conjunction with conventional treatments as well as their advantages and drawbacks as future medicines.

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.

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.

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.

Oncolytic viruses: challenges and considerations in an evolving clinical landscape

Despite advances in treatment, cancer remains a leading cause of death worldwide. Although treatment strategies are continually progressing, cancers have evolved many mechanisms for evading therapies and the host immune system. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) could provide a much-needed option for cancers that are resistant to existing treatments. OVs can be engineered to specifically target and kill cancer cells, while simultaneously triggering an immune response at the site of infection. This review will focus on the challenges of developing a successful OV and translation to clinical practice, discussing the innovative strategies that are being used to optimize the potential of OVs. Here, we will also explore the current clinical landscape and the prospects of OVs in early clinical development.

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.

Oncolytic Viruses: Immunotherapy Drugs for Gastrointestinal Malignant Tumors

Oncolytic virus therapy has advanced rapidly in recent years. Natural or transgenic viruses can target tumor cells and inhibit tumor growth and metastasis in various ways without interfering with normal cell and tissue function. Oncolytic viruses have a high level of specificity and are relatively safe. Malignant tumors in the digestive system continue to have a high incidence and mortality rate. Although existing treatment methods have achieved some curative effects, they still require further improvement due to side effects and a lack of specificity. Many studies have shown that oncolytic viruses can kill various tumor cells, including malignant tumors in the digestive system. This review discusses how oncolytic virus therapy improves malignant tumors in the digestive system from the point-of-view of basic and clinical studies. Also, the oncolytic virus anti-tumor mechanisms underpinning the therapeutic potential of oncolytic viruses are expounded. In all, we argue that oncolytic viruses might eventually provide therapeutic solutions to malignant tumors in the digestive system.

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.

Impact of Value Frameworks on the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit: Evaluating a Decade of Randomized Trials for Systemic Therapy in Solid Malignancies

In the era of rapid development of new, expensive cancer therapies, value frameworks have been developed to quantify clinical benefit (CB). We assessed the evolution of CB since the 2015 introduction of The American Society of Clinical Oncology and The European Society of Medical Oncology value frameworks. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing systemic therapies for solid malignancies from 2010 to 2020 were evaluated and CB (Δ) in 2010–2014 (pre-value frameworks (PRE)) were compared to 2015–2020 (POST) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and quality of life (QoL). In the 485 studies analyzed (12% PRE and 88% POST), the most common primary endpoint was PFS (49%), followed by OS (20%), RR (12%), and QoL (6%), with a significant increase in OS and decrease in RR as primary endpoints in the POST era (p = 0.011). Multivariable analyses revealed significant improvement in ΔOS POST (OR 2.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.26, p = 0.02) while controlling for other variables. After the development of value frameworks, median ΔOS improved minimally. The impact of value frameworks has yet to be fully realized in RCTs. Efforts to include endpoints shown to impact value, such as QoL, into clinical trials are warranted.

Advances and new frontiers for immunotherapy in colorectal cancer: Setting the stage for neoadjuvant success?

Immunotherapy in the metastatic setting has drastically altered the landscape of treatment for various types of malignancy, including colorectal cancer. The category of immune checkpoint inhibitors has especially emerged as a class of therapy predicated on a more comprehensive understanding of immune cell-cancer cell regulation and evolution of the tumor microenvironment over time. Strategies including adoptive cellular therapies, tumor vaccines, and antibodies have also demonstrated the ability to enhance antitumor immunity. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of the current landscape of immunotherapeutic strategies in colorectal cancer and provide insight into how these strategies may evolve in the next decade and be adapted to more localized forms of cancers of the colon and rectum. We provide particular focus on various combination approaches under investigation for reversing cancer-induced immunosuppression, especially in mismatch repair-proficient/microsatellite-stable colorectal tumors. Finally, we summarize current understanding on a recently identified integral factor in local immune regulation, the colonic microbiome. The aim of this article is to identify current challenges and barriers to improvement and to specify opportunities for applying knowledge in the immunotherapy sphere to rational design of clinical trials intended to improve survival and related outcomes in patients treated in the neoadjuvant setting.

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.

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.

Mesenchymal stem cell carriers enhance anti-tumor efficacy of oncolytic virotherapy

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) specifically infect, replicate and eventually destroy tumor cells, with no concomitant toxicity to adjacent normal cells. Furthermore, OVs can regulate tumor microenvironments and stimulate anti-tumor immune responses. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have inherent tumor tropisms and immunosuppressive functions. MSCs carrying OVs not only protect viruses from clearing by the immune system, but they also deliver the virus to tumor lesions. Equally, cytokines released by MSCs enhance anti-tumor immune responses, suggesting that MSCs carrying OVs may be considered as a promising strategy in enhancing the anti-tumor efficacies of virotherapy. In the present review, preclinical and clinical studies were evaluated and discussed, as well as the effectiveness of MSCs carrying OVs for tumor treatment.

Immuno-Oncolytic Viruses: Emerging Options in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

Colorectal cancer is the third most common neoplasm in the world and the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the USA. A safer and more effective therapeutic intervention against this malignant carcinoma is called for given the limitations and toxicities associated with the currently available treatment modalities. Immuno-oncolytic or oncolytic virotherapy, the use of viruses to selectively or preferentially kill cancer cells, has emerged as a potential anticancer treatment modality. Oncolytic viruses act as double-edged swords against the tumors through the direct cytolysis of cancer cells and the induction of antitumor immunity. A number of such viruses have been tested against colorectal cancer, in both preclinical and clinical settings, and many have produced promising results. Oncolytic virotherapy has also shown synergistic antitumor efficacy in combination with conventional treatment regimens. In this review, we describe the status of this therapeutic approach against colorectal cancer at both preclinical and clinical levels. Successes with and the challenges of using oncolytic viruses, both as monotherapy and in combination therapy, are also highlighted.

Evolving Role of Oncolytic Virotherapy: Challenges and Prospects in Clinical Practice

Selective oncotropism and cytolytic activity against tumors have made certain viruses subject to investigation as novel treatment modalities. However, monotherapy with oncolytic viruses (OVs) has shown limited success and modest clinical benefit. The capacity to genetically engineer OVs makes them a desirable platform to design complementary treatment modalities to overcome the existing treatment options' shortcomings. In recent years, our knowledge of interactions of the tumors with the immune system has expanded profoundly. There is a growing body of literature supporting immunomodulatory roles for OVs. The concept of bioengineering these platforms to induce the desired immune response and complement the current immunotherapeutic modalities to make immune-resistant tumors responsive to immunotherapy is under investigation in preclinical and early clinical trials. This review provides an overview of attempts to optimize oncolytic virotherapy as essential components of the multimodality anticancer therapeutic approach and discusses the challenges in translation to clinical practice.

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.

Past, Present and Future of Oncolytic Reovirus

Oncolytic virotherapy (OVT) has received significant attention in recent years, especially since the approval of talimogene Laherparepvec (T-VEC) in 2015 by the Food and Drug administration (FDA). Mechanistic studies of oncolytic viruses (OVs) have revealed that most, if not all, OVs induce direct oncolysis and stimulate innate and adaptive anti-tumour immunity. With the advancement of tumour modelling, allowing characterisation of the effects of tumour microenvironment (TME) components and identification of the cellular mechanisms required for cell death (both direct oncolysis and anti-tumour immune responses), it is clear that a "one size fits all" approach is not applicable to all OVs, or indeed the same OV across different tumour types and disease locations. This article will provide an unbiased review of oncolytic reovirus (clinically formulated as pelareorep), including the molecular and cellular requirements for reovirus oncolysis and anti-tumour immunity, reports of pre-clinical efficacy and its overall clinical trajectory. Moreover, as it is now abundantly clear that the true potential of all OVs, including reovirus, will only be reached upon the development of synergistic combination strategies, reovirus combination therapeutics will be discussed, including the limitations and challenges that remain to harness the full potential of this promising therapeutic agent.

Combining oncolytic virus with FDA approved pharmacological agents for cancer therapy

INTRODUCTION

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) have been engineered to selectively replicate in cancer cells. While initially thought to exert its anti-cancer effects through direct cytolysis, it is increasingly appreciated that OVs interact with a multitude of cellular processes during its life cycle; FDA approved pharmacologic agents that modulate these cellular processes have been shown to augment the anti-neoplastic effects of OVs. Moreover, because of the release of tumor antigens as well as the innate immuno-stimulatory nature of viruses, OVs induce potent immune responses that augment the anti-tumor effects of FDA approved immunotherapies. There is mounting interest in OV as a platform for combinational anti-cancer therapy in this context.

AREAS COVERED

We will review pre-clinical and clinical data that demonstrate proof-of-principle and potential efficacy for OV-based combination therapies with FDA approved anti-cancer agents.

EXPERT OPINION

While the cytolytic activity of OV remains a key driver for its anti-neoplastic effects, understanding the virus-host interactions may afford opportunities for potential synergism with FDA approved therapeutics that target these interactions. Most intriguingly, the immune stimulatory effects of OVs renders combination with FDA approved immunotherapies more potent. While there are growing clinical trials employing such combination therapy, meaningful advances in this paradigm will require improved understanding of virus-host interactions.

Kinase inhibitors with viral oncolysis: Unmasking pharmacoviral approaches for cancer therapy

There are more than 500 kinases in the human genome, many of which are oncogenic once constitutively activated. Fortunately, numerous hyperactive kinases are druggable, and several targeted small molecule kinase inhibitors have demonstrated impressive clinical benefits in cancer treatment. However, their often cytostatic rather than cytotoxic effect on cancer cells, and the development of resistance mechanisms, remain significant limitations to these targeted therapies. Oncolytic viruses are an emerging class of immunotherapeutic agents with a specific oncotropic nature and excellent safety profile, highlighting them as a promising alternative to conventional therapeutic modalities. Nonetheless, the clinical efficacy of oncolytic virotherapy is challenged by immunological and physical barriers that limit viral delivery, replication, and spread within tumours. Several of these barriers are often associated with oncogenic kinase activity and, in some cases, worsened by the action of oncolytic viruses on kinase signaling during infection. What if inhibiting these kinases could potentiate the cancer-lytic and anti-tumour immune stimulating properties of oncolytic virotherapies? This could represent a paradigm shift in the use of specific kinase inhibitors in the clinic and provide a novel therapeutic approach to the treatment of cancers. A phase III clinical trial combining the oncolytic Vaccinia virus Pexa-Vec with the kinase inhibitor Sorafenib was initiated. While this trial failed to show any benefits over Sorafenib monotherapy in patients with advanced liver cancer, several pre-clinical studies demonstrate that targeting kinases combined with oncolytic viruses have synergistic effects highlighting this strategy as a unique avenue to cancer therapy. Herein, we review the combinations of oncolytic viruses with kinase inhibitors reported in the literature and discuss the clinical opportunities that represent these pharmacoviral approaches.

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.

Elucidation of Pelareorep Pharmacodynamics in A Phase I Trial in Patients with KRAS-Mutated Colorectal Cancer

KRAS mutation is a negative predictive biomarker of anti-EGFR agents in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), and remains an elusive target. Pelareorep, a double-stranded RNA virus selectively replicates in KRAS-mutated cells, and is synergistic with irinotecan. A dose escalation trial of FOLFIRI/bevacizumab [irinotecan (150-180 mg/m²) and pelareorep (1 × 10¹⁰ TCID₅₀-3 × 10¹⁰ TCID₅₀)] was implemented in adult patients with oxaliplatin refractory/intolerant, KRAS-mutant mCRC. Pelareorep was administered intravenously over 1 hour on days 1-5 every 4 weeks. Additional studies included pharmacokinetics, tumor morphology, and immune responses. Among FOLFIRI-naïve patients, the highest dose of FOLFIRI/bevacizumab (180 mg/m² irinotecan) and pelareorep (3 × 10¹⁰ TCID₅₀) was well tolerated, without a dose-limiting toxicity. At the recommended phase II dose, 3 of 6 patients (50%) had a partial response; the median progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS) were 65.6 weeks and 25.1 months, respectively. Toxicities included myelosuppression, fatigue, and diarrhea. Transmission electron microscopy revealed viral factories (viral collections forming vesicular structures), at various stages of development. Immunogold staining against viral capsid σ-1 protein demonstrated viral "homing" in the tumor cells. The nucleus displayed sufficient euchromatin regions suggestive of active transcription. Flow cytometry revealed rapid dendritic cell maturation (48 hours) with subsequent activation of cytotoxic T cells (7 days). The combination of pelareorep with FOLFIRI/bevacizumab is safe. The PFS and OS data are encouraging and deserve further exploration. Pelareorep leads to a clear recurrent immune stimulatory response with cytotoxic T-cell activation, and homes and replicates in the tumor.

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.

Is There a Place for Immunotherapy for Metastatic Microsatellite Stable Colorectal Cancer?

Immunotherapy using checkpoint inhibitor targeting PD-1 and PD-L1 revolutionized the treatment of microsatellite instable metastatic colon cancer. Such treatment is now a standard of care for these patients. However, when used as monotherapy checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-1 and PD-L1 are not effective in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with microsatellite stable tumors. Recent advances in biology provide a rationale for this intrinsic resistance and support the evaluation of combination therapy to reverse resistance. This article will highlight recent findings on the mechanism of intrinsic resistance and recent advances in clinical trials for combination therapy.

Starvation-Induced Differential Virotherapy Using an Oncolytic Measles Vaccine Virus

Starvation sensitizes tumor cells to chemotherapy while protecting normal cells at the same time, a phenomenon defined as differential stress resistance. In this study, we analyzed if starvation would also increase the oncolytic potential of an oncolytic measles vaccine virus (MeV-GFP) while protecting normal cells against off-target lysis. Human colorectal carcinoma (CRC) cell lines as well as human normal colon cell lines were subjected to various starvation regimes and infected with MeV-GFP. The applied fasting regimes were either short-term (24 h pre-infection) or long-term (24 h pre- plus 96 h post-infection). Cell-killing features of (i) virotherapy, (ii) starvation, as well as (iii) the combination of both were analyzed by cell viability assays and virus growth curves. Remarkably, while long-term low-serum, standard glucose starvation potentiated the efficacy of MeV-mediated cell killing in CRC cells, it was found to be decreased in normal colon cells. Interestingly, viral replication of MeV-GFP in CRC cells was decreased in long-term-starved cells and increased after short-term low-glucose, low-serum starvation. In conclusion, starvation-based virotherapy has the potential to differentially enhance MeV-mediated oncolysis in the context of CRC cancer patients while protecting normal colon cells from unwanted off-target effects.

The Emerging Role of Checkpoint Inhibition in Microsatellite Stable Colorectal Cancer

Checkpoint inhibitor therapy has introduced a revolution in contemporary anticancer therapy. It has led to dramatic improvements in patient outcomes and has spawned tremendous research into novel immunomodulatory agents and combination therapy that has changed the trajectory of cancer care. However, clinical benefit in patients with colorectal cancer has been generally limited to tumors with loss of mismatch repair function and those with specific germline mutations in the DNA polymerase gene. Unfortunately, tumors with these specific mutator phenotypes are in the minority. Recent pre-clinical and clinical studies have begun to reveal encouraging results suggesting that checkpoint inhibitor therapy can be expanded to an increasing number of colorectal tumors with microsatellite stability and the absence of traditional predictive biomarkers of checkpoint inhibitor response. These studies generally rely on combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with chemotherapy, molecular targeted therapy, radiation therapy, or other novel immunomodulatory agents. This article will review the most current data in microsatellite stable colorectal cancer.

Multimodality Treatment of a Colorectal Cancer Stage IV Patient with FOLFOX-4, Bevacizumab, Rigvir Oncolytic Virus, and Surgery

Colorectal cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers worldwide. The treatment consists of surgical resection, systemic chemotherapy, and new biological agents. One more recently emerging treatment option is oncolytic virotherapy. Although the use of the new treatment methods shows improved overall and progression-free survival, in general, even with the new treatments, mortality remains high and combinations of treatments should be sought to treat patients with colorectal cancer. Here we report a stage IV colorectal cancer patient who received multimodality treatment including bevacizumab, FOLFOX-4, surgery, and the oncolytic virus Rigvir. The patient shows complete pathological remission and remains stable 7.7 years after initial diagnosis. The possible benefits of combining Rigvir oncolytic virus and bevacizumab should be investigated since in vitro research suggests that anti-angiogenesis agents improve viral distribution by altering the microenvironment of the tumor.