Colonization of xenograft tumors by oncolytic vaccinia virus (VACV) results in enhanced tumor killing due to the involvement of myeloid cells

A phase III, multicenter, randomized study of olvimulogene nanivacirepvec followed by platinum-doublet chemotherapy and bevacizumab compared with platinum-doublet chemotherapy and bevacizumab in women with platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for patients with platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancers are limited and only marginally effective. The development of novel, more effective therapies addresses a critical unmet medical need. Olvimulogene nanivacirepvec (Olvi-Vec), with its strong immune modulating effect on the tumor microenvironment, may provide re-sensitization to platinum and clinically reverse platinum resistance or refractoriness in platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

The primary objective is to evaluate the efficacy of intra-peritoneal Olvi-Vec followed by platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab in patients with platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer.

STUDY HYPOTHESIS

This phase III study investigates Olvi-Vec oncolytic immunotherapy followed by platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab as an immunochemotherapy evaluating the hypothesis that such sequential combination therapy will prolong progression-free survival (PFS) and bring other clinical benefits compared with treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab.

TRIAL DESIGN

This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, and active-controlled phase III trial. Patients will be randomized 2:1 into the experimental arm treated with Olvi-Vec followed by platinum-doublet chemotherapy and bevacizumab or the control arm treated with platinum-doublet chemotherapy and bevacizumab.

MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Eligible patients must have recurrent, platinum-resistant/refractory, non-resectable high-grade serous, endometrioid, or clear-cell ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. Patients must have had ≥3 lines of prior chemotherapy.

PRIMARY ENDPOINT

The primary endpoint is PFS in the intention-to-treat population.

SAMPLE SIZE

Approximately 186 patients (approximately 124 patients randomized to the experimental arm and 62 to the control arm) will be enrolled to capture 127 PFS events.

ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS

Expected complete accrual in 2024 with presentation of primary endpoint results in 2025.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05281471.

Immunosuppressive cells in oncolytic virotherapy for glioma: challenges and solutions

Glioblastoma is a highly aggressive form of brain cancer characterized by the abundance of myeloid lineage cells in the tumor microenvironment. Tumor-associated macrophages and microglia (TAM) and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), play a pivotal role in promoting immune suppression and tumor progression. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) are self-amplifying cytotoxic agents that can stimulate local anti-tumor immune responses and have the potential to suppress immunosuppressive myeloid cells and recruit tumor-infiltrating T lymphocytes (TILs) to the tumor site, leading to an adaptive immune response against tumors. However, the impact of OV therapy on the tumor-resident myeloid population and the subsequent immune responses are not yet fully understood. This review provides an overview of how TAM and MDSC respond to different types of OVs, and combination therapeutics that target the myeloid population to promote anti-tumor immune responses in the glioma microenvironment.

Remodeling the tumor microenvironment by oncolytic viruses: beyond oncolysis of tumor cells for cancer treatment

Tumor cells manipulate the local environment in which they grow, creating a tumor microenvironment (TME) that promotes tumor survival and metastasis. The TME is an extremely complex environment rich in immunosuppressive cells and cytokines. Various methods to therapeutically target the complicated TME are emerging as a potential approach for cancer treatment. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) are one of the most promising methods for remodeling the TME into an antitumor environment and can be used alone or in combination with other immunotherapy options. OVs replicate specifically in tumor cells and can be genetically engineered to target multiple elements of the TME simultaneously, thus representing a therapeutic with the potential to modify the TME to promote activation of antitumor immune cells and overcome tumor therapeutic resistance and recurrence. In this review, we analyze the tropism of OVs towards tumor cells and explore the interaction between OVs and immune cells, tumor stroma, vasculature and the metabolic environment in detail to help understand how OVs may be one of our most promising prospects for long-term curative therapies. We also discuss some of the challenges associated with TME therapies, and future perspectives in this evolving field.

A phase 1b study of intraperitoneal oncolytic viral immunotherapy in platinum-resistant or refractory ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to assess safety and adverse events associated with intraperitoneal Olvi-Vec virotherapy in patients with platinum-resistant or refractory ovarian cancer (PRROC). Secondary objectives included objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1 and progression-free survival (PFS).

METHODS

Olvi-Vec is a modified vaccinia virus that causes oncolysis and immune activation. An open-label phase 1b trial using a 3 + 3 dose escalation was conducted. Intraperitoneal Olvi-Vec was given as monotherapy in two consecutive daily doses. Translational analyses included anti-virus antibody levels, viral shedding, circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and T cells.

RESULTS

Twelve patients (median age: 69 years, range: 45-77) with median 5 prior therapies (range: 2-10) and 2 prior platinum lines (range: 1-5) were enrolled. There were three dose level cohorts: 3 × 10⁹ (n = 6), 1 × 10¹⁰ (n = 5), and 2.5 × 10¹⁰ (n = 1) plaque forming units (PFU)/day on two consecutive days. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) included G1/G2 nausea (n = 6), fever (n = 6), abdominal distention (n = 5), and abdominal pain (n = 4). There were no Grade 4 TRAEs, no dose relationship to TRAEs, and no deaths attributed to Olvi-Vec. The ORR was 9% (1/11). Stable disease (SD) was 64% (7/11), and SD ≥15 weeks was 46% (5/11). Median PFS was 15.7 weeks (95%CI: 5.7-34.5), including extended PFS in four patients (23.2, 34.5, 59.4+ and 70.8 weeks). Three patients had extended overall survival (deceased 33.6 months, and alive with disease at 54 and 59 months). CTCs diminished in 6/8 (75%) baseline-positive patients. Immune activation was demonstrated from virus-enhanced tumor infiltration of CD8+ T-cells and activation of tumor-specific T-cells in peripheral blood.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncolytic viral therapy with intraperitoneal Olvi-Vec showed promising safety, clinical activities, and immune activation in patients with PRROC, warranting further clinical investigation.

Resistance Mechanisms Influencing Oncolytic Virotherapy, a Systematic Analysis

Resistance to therapy is a frequently observed phenomenon in the treatment of cancer, and as with other cancer therapeutics, therapies based on oncolytic viruses also face the challenges of resistance, such as humoral and cellular antiviral responses, and tumor-associated interferon-mediated resistance. In order to identify additional mechanisms of resistance that may contribute to therapeutic failure, we developed a systematic search strategy for studies published in PubMed. We analyzed 6143 articles on oncolytic virotherapy and found that approximately 8% of these articles use resistance terms in the abstract and/or title. Of these 439 articles, 87 were original research. Most of the findings reported pertain to resistance mediated by tumor-cell-dependent interferon signaling. Yet, mechanisms such as epigenetic modifications, hypoxia-mediated inhibition, APOBEC-mediated resistance, virus entry barriers, and spatiotemporal restriction to viral spread, although not frequently assessed, were demonstrated to play a major role in resistance. Similarly, our results suggest that the stromal compartment consisting of, but not limited to, myeloid cells, fibroblasts, and epithelial cells requires more study in relation to therapy resistance using oncolytic viruses. Thus, our findings emphasize the need to assess the stromal compartment and to identify novel mechanisms that play an important role in conferring resistance to oncolytic virotherapy.

Targeting Myeloid Cells in Combination Treatments for Glioma and Other Tumors

Myeloid cells constitute a significant part of the immune system in the context of cancer, exhibiting both immunostimulatory effects, through their role as antigen presenting cells, and immunosuppressive effects, through their polarization to myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) and tumor-associated macrophages. While they are rarely sufficient to generate potent anti-tumor effects on their own, myeloid cells have the ability to interact with a variety of immune populations to aid in mounting an appropriate anti-tumor immune response. Therefore, myeloid therapies have gained momentum as a potential adjunct to current therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), dendritic cell vaccines, oncolytic viruses, and traditional chemoradiation to enhance therapeutic response. In this review, we outline critical pathways involved in the recruitment of the myeloid population to the tumor microenvironment and in their polarization to immunostimulatory or immunosuppressive phenotypes. We also emphasize existing strategies of modulating myeloid recruitment and polarization to improve anti-tumor immune responses. We then summarize current preclinical and clinical studies that highlight treatment outcomes of combining myeloid targeted therapies with other immune-based and traditional therapies. Despite promising results from reports of limited clinical trials thus far, there remain challenges in optimally harnessing the myeloid compartment as an adjunct to enhancing anti-tumor immune responses. Further large Phase II and ultimately Phase III clinical trials are needed to elucidate the treatment benefit of combination therapies in the fight against cancer.

Oncolytic Immunotherapy: Conceptual Evolution, Current Strategies, and Future Perspectives

The concept of oncolytic virus (OV)-mediated cancer therapy has been shifted from an operational virotherapy paradigm to an immunotherapy. OVs often induce immunogenic cell death (ICD) of cancer cells, and they may interact directly with immune cells as well to prime antitumor immunity. We and others have developed a number of strategies to further stimulate antitumor immunity and to productively modulate the tumor microenvironment (TME) for potent and sustained antitumor immune cell activity. First, OVs have been engineered or combined with other ICD inducers to promote more effective T cell cross-priming, and in many cases, the breaking of functional immune tolerance. Second, OVs may be armed to express Th1-stimulatory cytokines/chemokines or costimulators to recruit and sustain the potent antitumor immunity into the TME to focus their therapeutic activity within the sites of disease. Third, combinations of OV with immunomodulatory drugs or antibodies that recondition the TME have proven to be highly promising in early studies. Fourth, combinations of OVs with other immunotherapeutic regimens (such as prime-boost cancer vaccines, CAR T cells; armed with bispecific T-cell engagers) have also yielded promising preliminary findings. Finally, OVs have been combined with immune checkpoint blockade, with robust antitumor efficacy being observed in pilot evaluations. Despite some expected hurdles for the rapid translation of OV-based state-of-the-art protocols, we believe that a cohort of these novel approaches will join the repertoire of standard cancer treatment options in the near future.