Phase I/II trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy in combination with intravenous oncolytic reovirus in patients with advanced malignancies

Cancer therapy with the viral and bacterial pathogens: The past enemies can be considered the present allies

Cancer continues to be one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide despite significant advancements in cancer treatment. Many difficulties have arisen as a result of the detrimental consequences of chemotherapy and radiotherapy as a common cancer therapy, such as drug inability to penetrate deep tumor tissue, and also the drug resistance in tumor cells continues to be a major concern. These obstacles have increased the need for the development of new techniques that are more selective and effective against cancer cells. Bacterial-based therapies and the use of oncolytic viruses can suppress cancer in comparison to other cancer medications. The tumor microenvironment is susceptible to bacterial accumulation and proliferation, which can trigger immune responses against the tumor. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) have also gained considerable attention in recent years because of their potential capability to selectively target and induce apoptosis in cancer cells. This review aims to provide a comprehensive summary of the latest literature on the role of bacteria and viruses in cancer treatment, discusses the limitations and challenges, outlines various strategies, summarizes recent preclinical and clinical trials, and emphasizes the importance of optimizing current strategies for better clinical outcomes.

Sequence polymorphisms in the reovirus σ1 attachment protein modulate encapsidation efficiency and replication in mice

Many functions of viral attachment proteins are established, but less is known about the biological importance of viral attachment protein encapsidation efficiency. The mammalian orthoreovirus (reovirus) σ1 attachment protein forms filamentous trimers that incorporate into pentamers of the λ2 capsid protein. Reovirus strains vary in the efficiency of σ1 encapsidation onto progeny virions, which influences viral stability during entry into cells and the efficacy of tumor cell lysis. While the role of σ1 encapsidation has been evaluated in studies using cultured cells, the contribution of attachment protein encapsidation efficiency to viral infection in animals is less clear. Polymorphisms in reovirus σ1 at residues 22 and 249 have been implicated in viral dissemination in mice and susceptibility to proteolysis in the murine intestine, respectively. To determine whether these residues contribute to σ1 encapsidation efficiency, we engineered σ1 mutant viruses with single- and double-residue substitutions at sites 22 and 249. We found that substitutions at these sites alter the encapsidation of σ1 and that reoviruses encapsidating higher amounts of σ1 bind cells more avidly and have a modest replication advantage in a cell-type-specific manner relative to low σ1-encapsidating reoviruses. Furthermore, we found that a high σ1-encapsidating reovirus replicates and disseminates more efficiently in mice relative to a low σ1-encapsidating reovirus. These findings provide evidence of a relationship between viral attachment protein encapsidation efficiency and viral replication in cell culture and animal hosts.

IMPORTANCE

Viral attachment proteins can serve multiple functions during viral replication, including attachment to host cells, cell entry and disassembly, and modulation of host immune responses. The relationship between viral attachment protein encapsidation efficiency and viral replication in cells and animals is poorly understood. We engineered and characterized a panel of reoviruses that differ in the capacity to encapsidate the σ1 attachment protein. We found that strains encapsidating σ1 with higher efficiency bind cells more avidly and replicate and spread more efficiently in mice relative to those encapsidating σ1 with lower efficiency. These results highlight a function for σ1 attachment protein capsid abundance in viral replication in cells and animals, which may inform future use of reovirus as an oncolytic therapeutic.

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.

Comprehensive Single-Cell Immune Profiling Defines the Patient Multiple Myeloma Microenvironment Following Oncolytic Virus Therapy in a Phase Ib Trial

PURPOSE

Our preclinical studies showed that the oncolytic reovirus formulation pelareorep (PELA) has significant immunomodulatory anti-myeloma activity. We conducted an investigator-initiated clinical trial to evaluate PELA in combination with dexamethasone (Dex) and bortezomib (BZ) and define the tumor immune microenvironment (TiME) in patients with multiple myeloma treated with this regimen.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (n = 14) were enrolled in a phase Ib clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02514382) of three escalating PELA doses administered on Days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16. Patients received 40 mg Dex and 1.5 mg/m2 BZ on Days 1, 8, and 15. Cycles were repeated every 28 days. Pre- and posttreatment bone marrow specimens (IHC, n = 9; imaging mass cytometry, n = 6) and peripheral blood samples were collected for analysis (flow cytometry, n = 5; T-cell receptor clonality, n = 7; cytokine assay, n = 7).

RESULTS

PELA/BZ/Dex was well-tolerated in all patients. Treatment-emergent toxicities were transient, and no dose-limiting toxicities occurred. Six (55%) of 11 response-evaluable patients showed decreased paraprotein. Treatment increased T and natural killer cell activation, inflammatory cytokine release, and programmed death-ligand 1 expression in bone marrow. Compared with nonresponders, responders had higher reovirus protein levels, increased cytotoxic T-cell infiltration posttreatment, cytotoxic T cells in significantly closer proximity to multiple myeloma cells, and larger populations of a novel immune-primed multiple myeloma phenotype (CD138+ IDO1+HLA-ABCHigh), indicating immunomodulation.

CONCLUSIONS

PELA/BZ/Dex is well-tolerated and associated with anti-multiple myeloma activity in a subset of responding patients, characterized by immune reprogramming and TiME changes, warranting further investigation of PELA as an immunomodulator.

Clinical Advances and Future Directions of Oncolytic Virotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer

Oncolytic viruses (OVs), without harming normal tissues, selectively infect and replicate within tumor cells, to release immune molecules and tumor antigens, achieving immune-mediated destruction of tumors and making them one of the most promising immunotherapies for cancer. Many clinical studies have demonstrated that OVs can provide clinical benefits for patients with different types of tumors, at various stages, including metastatic and previously untreatable cases. When OVs are used in combination with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immunotherapy, and other treatments, they can synergistically enhance the therapeutic effects. The concept of oncolytic virotherapy (OVT) was proposed in the early 20th century. With advancements in genetic engineering, genetically modified viruses can further enhance the efficacy of cancer immunotherapy. In recent years, global research on OV treatment of malignant tumors has increased dramatically. This article comprehensively reviews the findings from relevant research and clinical trials, providing an overview of the development of OVT and its application in the clinical treatment of head and neck cancer. The aim is to offer insights for future clinical and fundamental research on OVT.

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.

Development and application of oncolytic viruses as the nemesis of tumor cells

Viruses and tumors are two pathologies that negatively impact human health, but what occurs when a virus encounters a tumor? A global consensus among cancer patients suggests that surgical resection, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and other methods are the primary means to combat cancer. However, with the innovation and development of biomedical technology, tumor biotherapy (immunotherapy, molecular targeted therapy, gene therapy, oncolytic virus therapy, etc.) has emerged as an alternative treatment for malignant tumors. Oncolytic viruses possess numerous anti-tumor properties, such as directly lysing tumor cells, activating anti-tumor immune responses, and improving the tumor microenvironment. Compared to traditional immunotherapy, oncolytic virus therapy offers advantages including high killing efficiency, precise targeting, and minimal side effects. Although oncolytic virus (OV) therapy was introduced as a novel approach to tumor treatment in the 19th century, its efficacy was suboptimal, limiting its widespread application. However, since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first OV therapy drug, T-VEC, in 2015, interest in OV has grown significantly. In recent years, oncolytic virus therapy has shown increasingly promising application prospects and has become a major research focus in the field of cancer treatment. This article reviews the development, classification, and research progress of oncolytic viruses, as well as their mechanisms of action, therapeutic methods, and routes of administration.

Oncolytic Virus-Driven Biotherapies from Bench to Bedside

With advances in cancer biology and an ever-deepening understanding of molecular virology, oncolytic virus (OV)-driven therapies have developed rapidly and become a promising alternative to traditional cancer therapies. In recent years, satisfactory results for oncolytic virus therapy (OVT) are achieved at both the cellular and organismal levels, and efforts are being increasingly directed toward clinical trials. Unfortunately, OVT remains ineffective in these trials, especially when performed using only a single OV reagent. In contrast, integrated approaches, such as using immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy, alongside OVT have demonstrated considerable efficacy. The challenges of OVT in clinical efficacy include the restricted scope of intratumoral injections and poor targeting of intravenous administration. Further optimization of OVT delivery is needed before OVs become a viable therapy for tumor treatment. In this review, the development process and antitumor mechanisms of OVs are introduced. The advances in OVT delivery routes to provide perspectives and directions for the improvement of OVT delivery are highlighted. This review also discusses the advantages and limitations of OVT monotherapy and combination therapy through the lens of recent clinical trials and aims to chart a course toward safer and more effective OVT strategies.

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.

Combination therapy with oncolytic viruses and immune checkpoint inhibitors in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas: an approach of complementary advantages

Squamous cell carcinomas are the most common head and neck malignancies. Significant progress has been made in standard therapeutic methods combining surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Nevertheless, the 5-year survival rate remains at 40-50%. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are a new strategy for treating head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCCs). Still, the overall response and effective rates are poor, as HNSCCs are 'cold' tumors with an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME), limiting ICI's beneficial effects. In this case, transforming the tumor suppression microenvironment before using ICIs could be helpful. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) can transform cold tumors into hot tumors, improving the situation. Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), oncolytic immunotherapy authorized for advanced melanoma, also showed good safety and antitumor activity in treating head and neck cancer and pancreatic cancer. In combination with pembrolizumab, T-Vec may have more anticancer efficacy than either drug alone. Therefore, understanding the mechanisms underpinning OVs and their potential synergism with ICIs could benefit patients with HNSCC.

Molecular-Targeted Therapy for Tumor-Agnostic Mutations in Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Comprehensive genomic profiling examinations (CGPs) have recently been developed, and a variety of tumor-agnostic mutations have been detected, leading to the development of new molecular-targetable therapies across solid tumors. In addition, the elucidation of hereditary tumors, such as breast and ovarian cancer, has pioneered a new age marked by the development of new treatments and lifetime management strategies required for patients with potential or presented hereditary cancers. In acute myeloid leukemia (AML), however, few tumor-agnostic or hereditary mutations have been the focus of investigation, with associated molecular-targeted therapies remaining poorly developed. We focused on representative tumor-agnostic mutations such as the TP53, KIT, KRAS, BRCA1, ATM, JAK2, NTRK3, FGFR3 and EGFR genes, referring to a CGP study conducted in Japan, and we considered the possibility of developing molecular-targeted therapies for AML with tumor-agnostic mutations. We summarized the frequency, the prognosis, the structure and the function of these mutations as well as the current treatment strategies in solid tumors, revealed the genetical relationships between solid tumors and AML and developed tumor-agnostic molecular-targeted therapies and lifetime management strategies in AML.

In vitro Characterization of Enhanced Human Immune Responses by GM-CSF Encoding HSV-1-Induced Melanoma Cells

PURPOSE

We studied the innate and adaptive immune response against melanoma cells after JS-1 (wild-type herpes simplex virus 1, wt HSV-1) or Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) infection and evaluated the antitumoral efficacy in human melanoma cells. We analyzed the putative synergistic biological and immunological effects of JS-1 or T-VEC combined with cytostatic drugs in human tumor and immune cells. T-VEC is a genetically modified strain of HSV-1. Genetic modifications (insertion of the granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) gene) were made to attenuate the virus and increase selectivity for cancer cells. In addition to the direct oncolytic effect, we investigated the immune stimulatory effects of T-VEC by comparing it with JS-1. JS-1 is identical T-VEC except for the inserted GM-CSF gene.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed the effects of T-VEC and JS-1 with cytostatic drugs in human tumor-immune cell coculture experiments. After coculture, the surface markers CD80, CD83 and CD86 were measured by fluorescence-activated cell sorting and the cytokines, interleukin (IL)-2, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and GM-CSF, by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Furthermore, we analyzed the potential of the viruses to induce T cell activation, measured on the basis of CD4, CD8 and CD69. Analysis of these markers and cytokines allows for conclusions to be drawn concerning the maturation of dendritic cells (DCs) and the immunostimulatory effects of the treatment.

RESULTS

We documented increased activation of human cytotoxic T lymphocytes after infection by both HSV-1 strains and treatment with cytostatic drugs without significant differences between T-VEC and JS-1.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated an immune response as a result of infection with both viruses, but T-VEC was in vitro not stronger than JS-1. The immunostimulatory effects of the viruses could be partially increased by chemotherapy, providing a rationale for future preclinical studies designed to explore T-VEC in combined regimens.

Combinatorial regimens of chemotherapeutic agents: A new perspective on raising the heat of the tumor immune microenvironment

Harnessing the broad immunostimulatory capabilities of chemotherapy in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors has improved immunotherapy outcomes in patients with cancer. Certain chemotherapeutic agents can extensively modify the tumor microenvironment (TME), resulting in the reprogramming of local immune responses. Although chemotherapeutic agents with an enhanced generation of potent anti-tumor immune responses have been tested in preclinical animal models and clinical trials, this strategy has not yet shown substantial therapeutic efficacy in selected difficult-to-treat cancer types. In addition, the efficacy of chemotherapeutic agent-based monotherapy in eliciting a long-term anti-tumor immune response is restricted by the immunosuppressive TME. To enhance the immunomodulatory effect of chemotherapy, researchers have made many attempts, mainly focusing on improving the targeted distribution of chemotherapeutic agents and designing combination therapies. Here, we focused on the mechanisms of the anti-tumor immune response to chemotherapeutic agents and enumerated the attempts to advance the use of chemo-immunotherapy. Furthermore, we have listed the important considerations in designing combinations of these drugs to maximize efficacy and improve treatment response rates in patients with cancer.

[Oncolytic virotherapy in head and neck cancer]

OBJECTIVE

Oncolytic viruses (OV) infect and kill cancer cells and elicit an antitumoral immune response. With their potential to break through tumor immunoresistance, OV might be a future combination treatment option in patients with advanced head and neck cancer (HNC). Modes of action, biological modifications, handling and side effects of OV for treatment of HNC are reviewed. Results of preclinical and clinical trials are reported.

METHODS

Publications and clinical trials dealing with OV and HNC were searched in PubMed and international platforms for clinical study records. Studies on preclinical and clinical trials regarding oncolytic Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV), Adenovirus, Vacciniavirus and Reovirus were selected.

RESULTS

Enhanced infection and killing of tumor cells through capsid and genome modifications of OV were reported in recent preclinical studies. Most of the clinical studies were phase-I/II trials. In phase III studies, tumor regression and prolonged survival were observed after treatment with oncolytic HSV, Adenoviruses and Reoviruses. In most trials, OV were combined with chemoradiotherapy or immunotherapy.

CONCLUSION

In the published studies, OV treatment of HNC patients was safe, often well tolerated and showed promising results with regard to response and survival, especially in combination with chemoradiotherapy or checkpoint inhibitors.

Multimodal immune activation abilities and characteristics of reovirus

Reovirus is a ubiquitous, non-pathogenic, double stranded RNA virus with anti-tumor properties. The virus's replicative potential is regulated by phosphorylation of protein kinase receptor (PKR). In cancers with RAS pathway activation which leads to dysregulation of PKR, the virus maintains its protein translational potential and induces oncolysis. Systemic chemotherapy remains the standard of care for metastatic colorectal cancer with the addition of biologic agents in KRAS wildtype subtypes. In KRAS mutant colorectal cancers, there has been no added benefit to biologic agents. The therapeutic potential of reovirus (Reolysin^®, pelareorep, Oncolytic Inc., Calgary, Canada), which induces its oncolysis with RAS activation through multimodal immune mechanisms, has been demonstrated in preclinical and clinical studies. In this review, we outline the specific immune mechanisms of reovirus induced oncolysis and provide both preclinical and clinical data on its applications in metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

The Use of Oncolytic Viruses in the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma

Simple Summary

Multiple myeloma is a type of blood cancer caused by the uncontrolled growth of antibody producing B cells (known as plasma cells) that reside in the bone marrow. It is classed as a largely incurable cancer as whilst patients respond well to initial chemotherapy treatments, unfortunately after periods of disease remission, relapse usually occurs with the emergence of chemotherapy resistance. Therefore, there is a need for new approaches that not only reduce tumour load but also prevent tumour relapse. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) (tumour killing viruses) are being explored as a therapy for various cancers, including multiple myeloma. This review discusses the use of OVs in myeloma in preclinical model systems and early phase clinical trials, and discusses some of the hurdles involved in the translation to myeloma patients.

Abstract

Multiple myeloma accounts for 1% of all new cancers worldwide. It is the second most common haematological malignancy and has a low five-year survival rate (53.2%). Myeloma remains an incurable disease and is caused by the growth of malignant plasma cells in the bone marrow. Current anti-myeloma therapies (conventional chemotherapies, immunomodulatory drugs i.e., thalidomide and its’ analogues, proteasome inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, and radiotherapy) initially substantially debulk tumour burden, but after a period of remission ‘plateau phase’ disease invariably relapses due to tumour recrudescence from foci of minimal residual disease (MRD) and accumulating drug resistance. Therefore, there is a compelling clinical need for the development of novel treatment regimens to target MRD and effectively eliminate all remaining tumour cells. This review will discuss the potential use of oncolytic virus (OV) therapies in the treatment of myeloma. Specifically, it will focus on preclinical studies using DNA viruses (adenovirus (Ad), vaccinia virus (VV), myxoma virus (MYXV), and herpes simplex virus (HSV)), RNA viruses (reovirus (reo), coxsackie virus, measles virus (MV) and bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV), and vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV)), and on four types of viruses (VV, reo, MV-NIS and VSV-IFNβ-NIS) that have been assessed clinically in a small number of myeloma patients.

Combination strategies to maximize the benefits of cancer immunotherapy

Immunotherapies such as immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) and adoptive cell therapy (ACT) have revolutionized cancer treatment, especially in patients whose disease was otherwise considered incurable. However, primary and secondary resistance to single agent immunotherapy often results in treatment failure, and only a minority of patients experience long-term benefits. This review article will discuss the relationship between cancer immune response and mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy. It will also provide a comprehensive review on the latest clinical status of combination therapies (e.g., immunotherapy with chemotherapy, radiation therapy and targeted therapy), and discuss combination therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. It will provide an overview of therapies targeting cytokines and other soluble immunoregulatory factors, ACT, virotherapy, innate immune modifiers and cancer vaccines, as well as combination therapies that exploit alternative immune targets and other therapeutic modalities. Finally, this review will include the stimulating insights from the 2020 China Immuno-Oncology Workshop co-organized by the Chinese American Hematologist and Oncologist Network (CAHON), the China National Medical Product Administration (NMPA) and Tsinghua University School of Medicine.

Antiviral antibody responses to systemic administration of an oncolytic RNA virus: the impact of standard concomitant anticancer chemotherapies

Background

Oncolytic reovirus therapy for cancer induces a typical antiviral response to this RNA virus, including neutralizing antibodies. Concomitant treatment with cytotoxic chemotherapies has been hypothesized to improve the therapeutic potential of the virus. Chemotherapy side effects can include immunosuppression, which may slow the rate of the antiviral antibody response, as well as potentially make the patient more vulnerable to viral infection.

Method

Reovirus neutralizing antibody data were aggregated from separate phase I clinical trials of reovirus administered as a single agent or in combination with gemcitabine, docetaxel, carboplatin and paclitaxel doublet or cyclophosphamide. In addition, the kinetics of individual antibody isotypes were profiled in sera collected in these trials.

Results

These data demonstrate preserved antiviral antibody responses, with only moderately reduced kinetics with some drugs, most notably gemcitabine. All patients ultimately produced an effective neutralizing antibody response.

Conclusion

Patients’ responses to infection by reovirus are largely unaffected by the concomitant drug treatments tested, providing confidence that RNA viral treatment or infection is compatible with standard of care treatments.

Combining Oncolytic Viruses and Small Molecule Therapeutics: Mutual Benefits

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

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

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

Phase I dose-escalation study of endoscopic intratumoral injection of OBP-301 (Telomelysin) with radiotherapy in oesophageal cancer patients unfit for standard treatments

PURPOSE

OBP-301 (Telomelysin) is an attenuated type-5 adenovirus that contains the human telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter to regulate viral replication. OBP-301 sensitises human cancer cells to ionising radiation by inhibiting DNA repair, and radiation enhances coxsackievirus and adenovirus receptor-mediated OBP-301 infection on the contrary. We assessed OBP-301 with radiotherapy in oesophageal cancer patients unfit for standard chemoradiation treatments.

METHODS

A phase I dose-escalation study of OBP-301 with radiotherapy was conducted in 13 histologically confirmed oesophageal cancer patients deemed unfit to undergo surgery or chemotherapy. Study treatment consisted of OBP-301 administration by intratumoural needle injection using a flexible endoscope on days 1, 18 and 32. Radiotherapy was administered concurrently over 6 weeks, beginning on day 4, to a total of 60 Gy.

RESULTS

Of the 13 patients, 7, 3 and 3 patients were treated with 10¹⁰, 10¹¹ and 10¹² virus particles, respectively. Study group comprised 10 males and 3 females, with a median age of 82 years (range, 53-91 years). All patients developed a transient, self-limited lymphopenia. Distribution studies revealed transient virus shedding in the plasma. Eight patients had local complete response (CR); all of them exhibited no pathologically viable malignant cells in biopsy specimens, and 3 patients had a partial response. The objective response rate was 91.7%. The clinical CR rate was 83.3% in stage I and 60.0% in stage II/III. Histopathological examination revealed massive infiltration of CD8⁺ cells and increased PD-L1 expression.

CONCLUSION

Multiple courses of endoscopic intratumoural OBP-301 injection with radiotherapy are feasible and provide clinical benefits in patients with oesophageal cancer unfit for standard treatments.

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).

A bibliometric review of oncolytic virus research as a novel approach for cancer therapy

Background

In recent years, oncolytic viruses (OVs) have drawn attention as a novel therapy to various types of cancers, both in clinical and preclinical cancer studies all around the world. Consequently, researchers have been actively working on enhancing cancer therapy since the early twentieth century. This study presents a systematic review of the literature on OVs, discusses underlying research clusters and, presents future directions of OVs research.

Methods

A total of 1626 published articles related to OVs as cancer therapy were obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) database published between January 2000 and March 2020. Various aspects of OVs research, including the countries/territories, institutions, journals, authors, citations, research areas, and content analysis to find trending and emerging topics, were analysed using the bibliometrix package in the R-software.

Results

In terms of the number of publications, the USA based researchers were the most productive (n = 611) followed by Chinese (n = 197), and Canadian (n = 153) researchers. The Molecular Therapy journal ranked first both in terms of the number of publications (n = 133) and local citations (n = 1384). The most prominent institution was Mayo Clinic from the USA (n = 117) followed by the University of Ottawa from Canada (n = 72), and the University of Helsinki from Finland (n = 63). The most impactful author was Bell J.C with the highest number of articles (n = 67) and total local citations (n = 885). The most impactful article was published in the Cell journal. In addition, the latest OVs research mainly builds on four research clusters.

Conclusion

The domain of OVs research has increased at a rapid rate from 2000 to 2020. Based on the synthesis of reviewed studies, adenovirus, herpes simplex virus, reovirus, and Newcastle disease virus have shown potent anti-cancer activity. Developed countries such as the USA, Canada, the UK, and Finland were the most productive, hence, contributed most to this field. Further collaboration will help improve the clinical research translation of this therapy and bring benefits to cancer patients worldwide.

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.

Reovirus-induced cell-mediated immunity for the treatment of multiple myeloma within the resistant bone marrow niche

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease and oncolytic viruses offer a well-tolerated addition to the therapeutic arsenal. Oncolytic reovirus has progressed to phase I clinical trials and its direct lytic potential has been extensively studied. However, to date, the role for reovirus-induced immunotherapy against MM, and the impact of the bone marrow (BM) niche, have not been reported.

METHODS

This study used human peripheral blood mononuclear cells from healthy donors and in vitro co-culture of MM cells and BM stromal cells to recapitulate the resistant BM niche. Additionally, the 5TGM1-Kalw/RijHSD immunocompetent in vivo model was used to examine reovirus efficacy and characterize reovirus-induced immune responses in the BM and spleen following intravenous administration. Collectively, these in vitro and in vivo models were used to characterize the development of innate and adaptive antimyeloma immunity following reovirus treatment.

RESULTS

Using the 5TGM1-Kalw/RijHSD immunocompetent in vivo model we have demonstrated that reovirus reduces both MM tumor burden and myeloma-induced bone disease. Furthermore, detailed immune characterization revealed that reovirus: (i) increased natural killer (NK) cell and CD8+ T cell numbers; (ii) activated NK cells and CD8+ T cells and (iii) upregulated effector-memory CD8+ T cells. Moreover, increased effector-memory CD8+ T cells correlated with decreased tumor burden. Next, we explored the potential for reovirus-induced immunotherapy using human co-culture models to mimic the myeloma-supportive BM niche. MM cells co-cultured with BM stromal cells displayed resistance to reovirus-induced oncolysis and bystander cytokine-killing but remained susceptible to killing by reovirus-activated NK cells and MM-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes.

CONCLUSION

These data highlight the importance of reovirus-induced immunotherapy for targeting MM cells within the BM niche and suggest that combination with agents which boost antitumor immune responses should be a priority.

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.

Synergism of rMV-Hu191 with cisplatin to treat gastric cancer by acid sphingomyelinase-mediated apoptosis requiring integrity of lipid raft microdomains

BACKGROUND

DDP-based chemotherapy is one of the first-line treatment in GC. However, the therapeutic efficacy of DDP is limited due to side effects. Therefore, it is of great significance to develop novel adjuvants to synergize with DDP. We had demonstrated previously that rMV-Hu191 had antitumor activity in GC. Here we examined the synergism of rMV-Hu191 with DDP in vitro and in vivo.

METHODS

Cellular proliferation, the synergistic effect and cell apoptosis were evaluated by CCK-8 assay, ZIP analysis and flow cytometry, respectively. The protein levels and location of ASMase were monitored by western blot and immunofluorescence assay. shRNA and imipramine were used to regulate the expression and activity of ASMase. MβCD was administrated to disrupt lipid rafts. Mice bearing GC xenografts were used to confirm the synergism in vivo.

RESULTS

From our data, combinational therapy demonstrated synergistic cytotoxicity both in resistant GC cell lines from a Chinese patient and drug-nonresistant GC cell lines, and increased cell apoptosis, instead of viral replication. Integrity of lipid rafts and ASMase were required for rMV-Hu191- and combination-induced apoptosis. The ASMase was delivered to the lipid raft microdomains at the initial stage of rMV-Hu191 treatment. In vivo GC mice xenografts confirmed the synergism of combinational treatment, together with increased apoptosis and trivial side-effects.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to demonstrate that rMV-Hu191 combined with DDP could be used as a potential therapeutic strategy in GC treatment and the ASMase and the integrity of lipid rafts are required for the synergistic effects.

Improving antitumor efficacy via combinatorial regimens of oncolytic virotherapy

As a promising therapeutic strategy, oncolytic virotherapy has shown potent anticancer efficacy in numerous pre-clinical and clinical trials. Oncolytic viruses have the capacity for conditional-replication within carcinoma cells leading to cell death via multiple mechanisms, including direct lysis of neoplasms, induction of immunogenic cell death, and elicitation of innate and adaptive immunity. In addition, these viruses can be engineered to express cytokines or chemokines to alter tumor microenvironments. Combination of oncolytic virotherapy with other antitumor therapeutic modalities, such as chemotherapy and radiation therapy as well as cancer immunotherapy can be used to target a wider range of tumors and promote therapeutic efficacy. In this review, we outline the basic biological characteristics of oncolytic viruses and the underlying mechanisms that support their use as promising antitumor drugs. We also describe the enhanced efficacy attributed to virotherapy combined with other drugs for the treatment of cancer.

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.

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.

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.

Efficient Delivery and Replication of Oncolytic Virus for Successful Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer

Head and neck cancer has been treated by a combination of surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. In recent years, the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has made immunotherapy a new treatment method. Oncolytic virus (OV) therapy selectively infects tumor cells with a low-pathogenic virus, lyses tumor cells by the cytopathic effects of the virus, and induces anti-tumor immunity to destroy tumors by the action of immune cells. In OV therapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), viruses, such as herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), vaccinia virus, adenovirus, reovirus, measles virus, and vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), are mainly used. As the combined use of mutant HSV-1 and ICI was successful for the treatment of melanoma, studies are underway to combine OV therapy with radiation, chemotherapy, and other types of immunotherapy. In such therapy, it is important for the virus to selectively replicate in tumor cells, and to express the viral gene and the introduced foreign gene in the tumor cells. In OV therapy for HNSCC, it may be useful to combine systemic and local treatments that improve the delivery and replication of the inoculated oncolytic virus in the tumor cells.

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.

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.

Optimizing Oncolytic Viral Design to Enhance Antitumor Efficacy: Progress and Challenges

The field of oncolytic virotherapy has seen remarkable advancements in last two decades, leading to approval of the first oncolytic immuno-virotherapy, Talimogene Laherparepvec, for the treatment of melanoma. A plethora of preclinical and clinical studies have demonstrated excellent safety profiles of other oncolytic viruses. While oncolytic viruses show clinical promise in already immunogenic malignancies, response rates are inconsistent. Response rates are even less consistent in immunosuppressed tumor microenvironments like those found in liver, pancreas, and MSI-stable colon cancers. Therefore, the efficacy of oncolytic viruses needs to be improved for more oncolytic viruses to enter mainstream cancer therapy. One approach to increase the therapeutic efficacy of oncolytic viruses is to use them as primers for other immunotherapeutics. The amenability of oncolytic viruses to transgene-arming provides an immense opportunity for investigators to explore different ways of improving the outcome of oncolytic therapy. In this regard, genes encoding immunomodulatory proteins are the most commonly studied genes for arming oncolytic viruses. Other transgenes used to arm oncolytic viruses include those with the potential to favorably modulate tumor stroma, making it possible to image the virus distribution and increase its suitability for combination with other therapeutics. This review will detail the progress made in arming oncolytic viruses with a focus on immune-modulatory transgenes, and will discuss the challenges that need to be addressed for more armed oncolytic viruses to find widespread clinical use.

Oncolytic viruses: what to expect from their use in cancer treatment

Oncolytic viruses are biologic agents able to selectively infect and destroy cancer cells while sparing the normal ones. Furthermore, they also stimulate the host immune system to combat the tumor growth and to promote tumor removal. This review thoroughly describes different types of viruses developed for targeting specific cancers, as well as the strategies to improve the efficacy and safety of oncolytic virotherapy. It also explores how their potential as anticancer agents may be enhanced through combination with other traditional therapies, such as chemotherapy or more recent approaches, such as checkpoint inhibitors. There are many oncolytic viruses currently being tested in clinical trials for the treatment of various types of cancer, suggesting that this approach could become the near future of the oncology field.

Comparison of Clinically Relevant Oncolytic Virus Platforms for Enhancing T Cell Therapy of Solid Tumors

Despite some promising results, the majority of patients do not benefit from T cell therapies, as tumors prevent T cells from entering the tumor, shut down their activity, or downregulate key antigens. Due to their nature and mechanism of action, oncolytic viruses have features that can help overcome many of the barriers currently facing T cell therapies of solid tumors. This study aims to understand how four different oncolytic viruses (adenovirus, vaccinia virus, herpes simplex virus, and reovirus) perform in that task. For that purpose, an immunocompetent in vivo tumor model featuring adoptive tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy was used. Tumor growth control (p < 0.001) and survival analyses suggest that adenovirus was most effective in enabling T cell therapy. The complete response rate was 62% for TILs + adenovirus versus 17.5% for TILs + PBS. Of note, TIL biodistribution did not explain efficacy differences between viruses. Instead, immunostimulatory shifts in the tumor microenvironment mirrored efficacy results. Overall, the use of oncolytic viruses can improve the utility of T cell therapies, and additional virus engineering by arming with transgenes can provide further antitumor effects. This phenomenon was seen when an unarmed oncolytic adenovirus was compared to Ad5/3-E2F-d24-hTNFa-IRES-hIL2 (TILT-123). A clinical trial is ongoing, where patients receiving TIL treatment also receive TILT-123 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04217473).

Drug Combinatorial Therapies for the Treatment of KRAS Mutated Lung Cancers

KRAS is the most common oncogene to be mutated in lung cancer, and therapeutics directly targeting KRAS have proven to be challenging. The mutations of KRAS are associated with poor prognosis, and resistance to both adjuvant therapy and targeted EGFR TKI. EGFR TKIs provide significant clinical benefit for patients whose tumors bear EGFR mutations. However, tumors with KRAS mutations rarely respond to the EGFR TKI therapy. Thus, combination therapy is essential for the treatment of lung cancers with KRAS mutations. EGFR TKI combined with inhibitors of MAPKs, PI3K/mTOR, HDAC, Wee1, PARP, CDK and Hsp90, even miRNAs and immunotherapy, were reviewed. Although the effects of the combination vary, the combined therapeutics are one of the best options at present to treat KRAS mutant lung cancer.

Management of Locoregionally Advanced Melanoma

Melanoma has a unique propensity for locoregional metastasis secondary to intralymphatic transit not seen in other cutaneous or soft tissue malignancies. Novel intralesional therapies using oncolytic immunotherapy exhibit increasing response rates with observed bystander effect. Intralesional modalities in combination with systemic immunotherapy are the subject of ongoing clinical trials. Regional therapy is used in isolated limb locoregional metastasis whereby chemotherapy is delivered to an isolated limb avoiding systemic side effects. Multimodal treatment strategy is imperative in the treatment of locoregionally advanced melanoma. One must be versed on these quickly evolving therapeutic options.

The role of the immune system in brain metastasis

Metastatic brain tumors are the most common brain tumors in adults. With numerous successful advancements in systemic treatment of most common cancer types, brain metastasis is becoming increasingly important in the overall prognosis of cancer patients. Brain metastasis of peripheral tumor is the result of complex interplay of primary tumor, immune system and central nervous system microenvironment. Once formed, brain metastases hide behind the blood brain barrier and become inaccessible to chemotherapies that are otherwise successful in targeting systemic cancer. The approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors for several common cancers such as advanced melanoma and lung cancers brings with it the opportunity and obligation to further understand the mechanisms of immunosuppression by tumors that spread to the brain as well as the interaction between the brain environment and tumor microenvironment. In this review paper we define the central role of the immune system in the development of brain metastases. We performed a comprehensive review of the literature to outline the molecular mechanisms of immunosuppression used by tumors and how the immune system interacts with the central nervous system to facilitate brain metastasis. In particular we discuss the tumor-type-specific mechanisms of metastasis of cancers that preferentially metastasize to the brain as well as the therapies that effectively modulate the immune response, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and vaccines.

Combination of Oncolytic Measles Virus Armed With BNiP3, a Pro-apoptotic Gene and Paclitaxel Induces Breast Cancer Cell Death

Breast cancer is one of the major causes of cancer related mortality in women worldwide. Limitations of conventional anti-cancer therapies such as severe systemic side effects, narrow therapeutic index, non-specificity, and non-availability of drugs for all types of cancers has resulted in the development of various novel and targeted approaches. The use of viruses as oncolytic agents has gained momentum for the development of an efficient therapeutic platform. In this study, we have developed recombinant measles virus armed with BNiP3, a pro-apoptotic gene of human origin, as an oncolytic agent, and have demonstrated its ability to induce apoptosis in breast cancer cells in vitro. Studies have demonstrated the potential of using oncolytic viruses in combination with conventional therapies as an efficient anti-cancer regimen. We also have explored the synergistic potential of this virus in combination with paclitaxel, and a hydrazone derivative, H2 compound as an anti-cancer agent. MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231, human breast cancer cell lines were used for in vitro studies to evaluate toxic effects of armed virus, rMV-BNiP3 both as a standalone therapy and in combination with paclitaxel or H2 compound, a hydrazone derivative. Generation of armed virus was confirmed by detecting the viral transcript and protein expression, while its oncolytic potential by cell viability assays. Induction of apoptosis was demonstrated by fluorescence based caspase 3 activity and flow cytometry based Annexin V/PI staining. In the current study we have demonstrated the successful generation of an oncolytic measles virus armed with BNiP3 (rMV-BNiP3) and the induction of toxic effects in rMV-BNiP3 infected cells with a curious bias toward MDA-MB-231 cells as compared to MCF-7. Infection of breast cancer cells with rMV-BNiP3 caused induction of cell death, but the combination of rMV-BNiP3 with sub-lethal doses of both paclitaxel and H2 lowered the overall viability of cancer cells. As triple negative breast tumors are highly aggressive and resistant subtype of breast cancer with poor prognosis, comparative sensitivity of MDA-MB-231 cells toward this virus may potentially be used to develop a targeted therapy against triple negative breast cancer.

Engineered oncolytic viruses to treat melanoma: where are we now and what comes next?

INTRODUCTION

Melanoma treatments have evolved rapidly in the past decade and have included the use of intratumoral injections of engineered oncolytic viruses. One such oncolytic virus is talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), which is the first approved therapy of its kind for use in recurrent, unresectable stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma. Additional oncolytic viruses and their uses in combination with other interventions are currently under investigation.

AREAS COVERED

Oncolytic viruses are being evaluated as immunotherapies for a variety of advanced malignancies. In this article, we review T-VEC, the only FDA-approved engineered oncolytic virus, in addition to ongoing research regarding other oncolytic viruses for the treatment of advanced melanomas. Finally, we discuss opportunities to improve these therapies through viral, host, and tumor-related modifications.

EXPERT OPINION

Engineered and naturally oncolytic viruses have demonstrable local and systemic efficacy as immunotherapies in cancer. T-VEC leads the way with improved survival outcomes for unresectable, stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma as a monotherapy, and is demonstrating superior results in combination with systemic checkpoint inhibitors. Additional viral vectors show acceptable safety profiles and varying degrees of efficacy in targeting melanoma. The indications for use of oncolytic viruses will expand as their efficacy and appropriate usage is better understood in coming years.

Sialic Acids in Nonenveloped Virus Infections

Sialic acid-based glycoconjugates cover the surfaces of many different cell types, defining key properties of the cell surface such as overall charge or likely interaction partners. Because of this prominence, sialic acids play prominent roles in mediating attachment and entry to viruses belonging to many different families. In this review, we first describe how interactions between viruses and sialic acid-based glycan structures can be identified and characterized using a range of techniques. We then highlight interactions between sialic acids and virus capsid proteins in four different viruses, and discuss what these interactions have taught us about sialic acid engagement and opportunities to interfere with binding.

Oncolytic Viruses on Drugs: Achieving Higher Therapeutic Efficacy

Over the past 20 years there has been a dramatic expansion in the testing of oncolytic viruses (OVs) for the treatment of cancer. OVs are unique biotherapeutics that induce multimodal responses toward tumors, from direct cytopathic effects on cancer cells, to tumor associated blood vessel disruption, and ultimately potent stimulation of anti-tumor immune activation. These agents are highly targeted and can be efficacious as cancer treatments resulting in some patients experiencing complete tumor regression and even cures from OV monotherapy. However, most patients have limited responses with viral replication in tumors often found to be modest and transient. To augment OV replication, increase bystander killing of cancer cells, and/or stimulate stronger targeted anti-cancer immune responses, drug combination approaches have taken center stage for translation to the clinic. Here we comprehensively review drugs that have been combined with OVs to increase therapeutic efficacy, examining the proposed mechanisms of action, and we discuss trends in pharmaco-viral immunotherapeutic approaches currently being investigated.

Therapeutic vaccines and immune checkpoints inhibition options for gynecological cancers

Treatments for gynecological cancer include surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. However, overall survival is not improved, and novel approaches are needed. Immunotherapy has been proven efficacious in various types of cancers and multiple approaches have been recently developed. Since numerous gynecological cancers are associated to human papilloma virus (HPV) infections, therapeutic vaccines, targeting HPV epitopes, have been developed. The advancing understanding of the immune system, regulatory pathways and tumor microenvironment have produced a major interest in immune checkpoint blockade, Indeed, immune checkpoint molecules are important clinical targets in a wide variety of tumors, including gynecological. In this review, we will describe the immunotherapeutic targets and modalities available and review the most recent immunotherapeutic clinical trials in the context of gynecological cancers. The synergic results obtained from the combination of HPV therapeutic vaccines with radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or immune checkpoint inhibitors, may underlie the potential for a novel therapeutic scenario for these tumors.

Recombinant viruses with other anti-cancer therapeutics: a step towards advancement of oncolytic virotherapy

Cancer as a disease is a multifaceted foe which sometimes succumbs to the prescribed treatment and sometimes develops resistance against various therapies. Conventional cancer therapies suffer from many limitations, the least of which is their specificity and systemic side effects. In a majority of cases, acquired mutations render the cancer cells resistant to therapy and lower the prognostic outcome. In the constant effort to devise a therapeutic moiety which can comprehensively eliminate cancer cells, oncolytic viruses provide an attractive avenue as they selectively infect and lyse cancer cells sparing normal cells from their effects. Viruses can be engineered for their host specificity and toxicity as a promising anti-cancer tool. As it is essential to devise a strategy to address all targets involved in cancer development and progression, the idea of using oncolytic viruses with enhanced anti-cancer activity through arming with foreign genes gained merit and is showing promising advent in clinical studies. The use of oncolytic viruses as an agent of combination therapy for cancer treatment also gained much attention in the recent past. This review focuses on the emerging role of oncolytic viruses as vital components of anti-cancer regimen presenting a new dimension in an ever-changing cancer therapy scenario.

Current Strategies to Enhance Anti-Tumour Immunity

The interaction of the immune system with cancer is complex, but new approaches are resulting in exciting therapeutic benefits. In order to enhance the immune response to cancer, immune therapies seek to either induce high avidity immune responses to tumour specific antigens or to convert the tumour to a more pro-inflammatory microenvironment. Strategies, including vaccination, oncolytic viruses, and adoptive cell transfer all seek to induce anti-tumour immunity. To overcome the suppressive tumour microenvironment checkpoint inhibitors and modulators of regulatory cell populations have been investigated. This review summarizes the recent advances in immune therapies and discusses the importance of combination therapies in the treatment of cancers.

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

BACKGROUND

Oncolytic reovirus pelareorep might preferentially infect and destroy rat sarcoma (RAS)-activated cells, and has preclinical and early clinical activity against colorectal cancer (CRC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

After a 6-patient safety run-in, 103 patients with metastatic CRC were randomly assigned to standard first-line leucovorin/5-FU/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX6)/bevacizumab (FOLFOX/BEV) every 2 weeks with (n = 51) or without (n = 52) pelareorep 3 × 10¹⁰ tissue culture infective dose 50 on days 1 to 5 (cycles 1, 2, 4, and alternate cycles thereafter). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life, and correlative analyses.

RESULTS

At 13 months' median follow-up, PFS was inferior in the pelareorep arm (median 7 vs. 9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 1.59 [80% confidence interval (CI), 1.18-2.15]; P = .046). There was no statistical difference in OS (median, 19.2 vs. 20.1 months; HR, 1.22; P = .38). An increased ORR was observed with pelareorep (adjusted odds ratio, 2.52 [80% CI, 1.44-4.41]; P = .03), but with a shorter median duration of response (5 vs. 9 months; P = .028). Pelareorep patients experienced more hypertension and proteinuria, and were more likely to omit bevacizumab before progression. A trend to lower dose intensity and shorter oxaliplatin and bevacizumab treatment duration was observed with pelareorep.

CONCLUSION

Combination pelareorep with FOLFOX/BEV was tolerable with an increased ORR, but PFS was inferior. Subgroup analysis of baseline variables including Kirsten rat sarcoma oncogene did not identify subgroups with PFS benefit. Decreased treatment intensity with standard agents likely contributed to the lack of benefit with pelareorep. Future studies might consider alternate pelareorep/chemotherapy strategies or combination therapy with novel agents.