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

Clinical Application of Oncolytic Viruses: A Systematic Review

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

Determinants of the efficacy of viro-immunotherapy: A review

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

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

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

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

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

Pathogen Molecular Pattern Receptor Agonists: Treating Cancer by Mimicking Infection

Immunotherapies such as checkpoint blockade have achieved durable benefits for patients with advanced stage cancer and have changed treatment paradigms. However, these therapies rely on a patient's own a priori primed tumor-specific T cells, limiting their efficacy to a subset of patients. Because checkpoint blockade is most effective in patients with inflamed or "hot" tumors, a priority in the field is learning how to "turn cold tumors hot." Inflammation is generally initiated by innate immune cells, which receive signals through pattern recognition receptors (PRR)-a diverse family of receptors that sense conserved molecular patterns on pathogens, alarming the immune system of an invading microbe. Their immunostimulatory properties can reprogram the immune suppressive tumor microenvironment and activate antigen-presenting cells to present tumors antigens, driving de novo tumor-specific T-cell responses. These features, among others, make PRR-targeting therapies an attractive strategy in immuno-oncology. Here, we discuss mechanisms of PRR activation, highlighting ongoing clinical trials and recent preclinical advances focused on therapeutically targeting PRRs to treat cancer.

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.

Directed evolution as a tool for the selection of oncolytic RNA viruses with desired phenotypes

Viruses have some characteristics in common with cell-based life. They can evolve and adapt to environmental conditions. Directed evolution can be used by researchers to produce viral strains with desirable phenotypes. Through bioselection, improved strains of oncolytic viruses can be obtained that have better safety profiles, increased specificity for malignant cells, and more efficient spread among tumor cells. It is also possible to select strains capable of killing a broader spectrum of cancer cell variants, so as to achieve a higher frequency of therapeutic responses. This review describes and analyses virus adaptation studies performed with members of four RNA virus families that are used for viral oncolysis: reoviruses, paramyxoviruses, enteroviruses, and rhabdoviruses.

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.

A multi-national, randomised, open-label, parallel, phase III non-inferiority study comparing NK105 and paclitaxel in metastatic or recurrent breast cancer patients

Background

NK105 is a novel nanoparticle drug delivery formulation that encapsulates paclitaxel (PTX) in polymeric micelles. We conducted an open-label phase III non-inferiority trial to compare the efficacy and safety of NK105 and PTX in metastatic or recurrent breast cancer.

Methods

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either NK105 (65 mg/m²) or PTX (80 mg/m²) on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), with a non-inferiority margin of 1.215.

Results

A total of 436 patients were randomised and 211 patients in each group were included in the efficacy analysis. The median PFS was 8.4 and 8.5 months for NK105 and PTX, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.255; 95% confidence interval: 0.989–1.592). The median overall survival and overall response rates were 31.2 vs. 36.2 months and 31.6% vs. 39.0%, respectively. The two groups exhibited similar safety profiles. The incidence of peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN) was 1.4% vs. 7.5% (≥Grade 3) for NK105 and PTX, respectively. The patient-reported outcomes of PSN were significantly favourable for NK105 (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

The primary endpoint was not met, but NK105 had a better PSN toxicity profile than PTX.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01644890

The Current Status and Future Prospects of Oncolytic Viruses in Clinical Trials against Melanoma, Glioma, Pancreatic, and Breast Cancers

Oncolytic viral therapy has been accepted as a standard immunotherapy since talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC, Imlygic^®) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for melanoma treatment in 2015. Various oncolytic viruses (OVs), such as HF10 (Canerpaturev—C-REV) and CVA21 (CAVATAK), are now actively being developed in phase II as monotherapies, or in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors against melanoma. Moreover, in glioma, several OVs have clearly demonstrated both safety and a promising efficacy in the phase I clinical trials. Additionally, the safety of several OVs, such as pelareorep (Reolysin^®), proved their safety and efficacy in combination with paclitaxel in breast cancer patients, but the outcomes of OVs as monotherapy against breast cancer have not provided a clear therapeutic strategy for OVs. The clinical trials of OVs against pancreatic cancer have not yet demonstrated efficacy as either monotherapy or as part of combination therapy. However, there are several oncolytic viruses that have successfully proved their efficacy in different preclinical models. In this review, we mainly focused on the oncolytic viruses that transitioned into clinical trials against melanoma, glioma, pancreatic, and breast cancers. Hence, we described the current status and future prospects of OVs clinical trials against melanoma, glioma, pancreatic, and breast cancers.

Trial Watch: Oncolytic viro-immunotherapy of hematologic and solid tumors

Oncolytic viruses selectively target and kill cancer cells in an immunogenic fashion, thus supporting the establishment of therapeutically relevant tumor-specific immune responses. In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the oncolytic herpes simplex virus T-VEC for use in advanced melanoma patients. Since then, a plethora of trials has been initiated to assess the safety and efficacy of multiple oncolytic viruses in patients affected with various malignancies. Here, we summarize recent preclinical and clinical progress in the field of oncolytic virotherapy.

The viral approach to breast cancer immunotherapy

Despite years of intensive research, breast cancer remains the leading cause of death in women worldwide. New technologies including oncolytic virus therapies, virus, and phage display are among the most powerful and advanced methods that have emerged in recent years with potential applications in cancer prevention and treatment. Oncolytic virus therapy is an interesting strategy for cancer treatment. Presently, a number of viruses from different virus families are under laboratory and clinical investigation as oncolytic therapeutics. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) have been shown to be able to induce and initiate a systemic antitumor immune response. The possibility of application of a multimodal therapy using a combination of the OV therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors and cancer antigen vaccination holds a great promise in the future of cancer immunotherapy. Display of immunologic peptides on bacterial viruses (bacteriophages) is also increasingly being considered as a new and strong cancer vaccine delivery strategy. In phage display immunotherapy, a peptide or protein antigen is presented by genetic fusions to the phage coat proteins, and the phage construct formulation acts as a protective or preventive vaccine against cancer. In our laboratory, we have recently tested a few peptides (E75, AE37, and GP2) derived from HER2/neu proto-oncogene as vaccine delivery modalities for the treatment of TUBO breast cancer xenograft tumors of BALB/c mice. Here, in this paper, we discuss the latest advancements in the applications of OVs and bacterial viruses display systems as new and advanced modalities in cancer immune therapeutics.

Oncolytic Reovirus and Immune Checkpoint Inhibition as a Novel Immunotherapeutic Strategy for Breast Cancer

As the current efficacy of oncolytic viruses (OVs) as monotherapy is limited, exploration of OVs as part of a broader immunotherapeutic treatment strategy for cancer is necessary. Here, we investigated the ability for immune checkpoint blockade to enhance the efficacy of oncolytic reovirus (RV) for the treatment of breast cancer (BrCa). In vitro, oncolysis and cytokine production were assessed in human and murine BrCa cell lines following RV exposure. Furthermore, RV-induced upregulation of tumor cell PD-L1 was evaluated. In vivo, the immunocompetent, syngeneic EMT6 murine model of BrCa was employed to determine therapeutic and tumor-specific immune responses following treatment with RV, anti-PD-1 antibodies or in combination. RV-mediated oncolysis and cytokine production were observed following BrCa cell infection and RV upregulated tumor cell expression of PD-L1. In vivo, RV monotherapy significantly reduced disease burden and enhanced survival in treated mice, and was further enhanced by PD-1 blockade. RV therapy increased the number of intratumoral regulatory T cells, which was reversed by the addition of PD-1 blockade. Finally, dual treatment led to the generation of a systemic adaptive anti-tumor immune response evidenced by an increase in tumor-specific IFN-γ producing CD8⁺ T cells, and immunity from tumor re-challenge. The combination of PD-1 blockade and RV appears to be an efficacious immunotherapeutic strategy for the treatment of BrCa, and warrants further investigation in early-phase clinical trials.

A Phase II Study of Pelareorep (REOLYSIN®) in Combination with Gemcitabine for Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a poor prognosis, with 1 and 5-year survival rates of ~18% and 7% respectively. FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine in combination with nab-paclitaxel are standard treatment options for metastatic disease. However, both regimens are more toxic than gemcitabine alone. Pelareorep (REOLYSIN®), a proprietary isolate of reovirus Type 3 Dearing, has shown antitumor activity in clinical and preclinical models. In addition to direct cytotoxic effects, pelareorep can trigger antitumor immune responses. Due to the high frequency of RAS mutations in PDAC, we hypothesized that pelareorep would promote selective reovirus replication in pancreatic tumors and enhance the anticancer activity of gemcitabine. Chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced PDAC were eligible for the study. The primary objective was Clinical Benefit Rate (complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) + stable disease (SD) ≥ 12 weeks) and secondary objectives include overall survival (OS), toxicity, and pharmacodynamics (PD) analysis. The study enrolled 34 patients; results included one partial response, 23 stable disease, and 5 progressive disease. The median OS was 10.2 months, with a 1- and 2-year survival rate of 45% and 24%, respectively. The treatment was well tolerated with manageable nonhematological toxicities. PD analysis revealed reovirus replication within pancreatic tumor and associated apoptosis. Upregulation of immune checkpoint marker PD-L1 suggests future consideration of combining oncolytic virus therapy with anti-PD-L1 inhibitors. We conclude that pelareorep complements single agent gemcitabine in PDAC.

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.