Oncolytic virotherapy in hepato-bilio-pancreatic cancer: The key to breaking the log jam?

Present and future of cancer nano-immunotherapy: opportunities, obstacles and challenges

Clinically, multimodal therapies are adopted worldwide for the management of cancer, which continues to be a leading cause of death. In recent years, immunotherapy has firmly established itself as a new paradigm in cancer care that activates the body's immune defense to cope with cancer. Immunotherapy has resulted in significant breakthroughs in the treatment of stubborn tumors, dramatically improving the clinical outcome of cancer patients. Multiple forms of cancer immunotherapy, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), adoptive cell therapy and cancer vaccines, have become widely available. However, the effectiveness of these immunotherapies is not much satisfying. Many cancer patients do not respond to immunotherapy, and disease recurrence appears to be unavoidable because of the rapidly evolving resistance. Moreover, immunotherapies can give rise to severe off-target immune-related adverse events. Strategies to remove these hindrances mainly focus on the development of combinatorial therapies or the exploitation of novel immunotherapeutic mediations. Nanomaterials carrying anticancer agents to the target site are considered as practical approaches for cancer treatment. Nanomedicine combined with immunotherapies offers the possibility to potentiate systemic antitumor immunity and to facilitate selective cytotoxicity against cancer cells in an effective and safe manner. A myriad of nano-enabled cancer immunotherapies are currently under clinical investigation. Owing to gaps between preclinical and clinical studies, nano-immunotherapy faces multiple challenges, including the biosafety of nanomaterials and clinical trial design. In this review, we provide an overview of cancer immunotherapy and summarize the evidence indicating how nanomedicine-based approaches increase the efficacy of immunotherapies. We also discuss the key challenges that have emerged in the era of nanotechnology-based cancer immunotherapy. Taken together, combination nano-immunotherapy is drawing increasing attention, and it is anticipated that the combined treatment will achieve the desired success in clinical cancer therapy.

Overcoming Resistance to Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Liver Cancer with Combination Therapy: Stronger Together?

Primary liver cancer, represented mainly by hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), is one of the most common and deadliest tumors worldwide. While surgical resection or liver transplantation are the best option in early disease stages, these tumors often present in advanced stages and systemic treatment is required to improve survival time. The emergence of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has had a positive impact especially on the treatment of advanced cancers, thereby establishing immunotherapy as part of first-line treatment in HCC and CCA. Nevertheless, low response rates reflect on the usually cold or immunosuppressed tumor microenvironment of primary liver cancer. In this review, we aim to summarize mechanisms of resistance leading to tumor immune escape with a special focus on the composition of tumor microenvironment in both HCC and CCA, also reflecting on recent important developments in ICI combination therapy. Furthermore, we discuss how combination of ICIs with established primary liver cancer treatments (e.g. multikinase inhibitors and chemotherapy) as well as more complex combinations with state-of-the-art therapeutic concepts may reshape the tumor microenvironment, leading to higher response rates and long-lasting antitumor immunity for primary liver cancer patients.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a Narrative Review on Current Knowledge and Future Prospects

OPINION STATEMENT

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide and its associated mortality rate is expected to rise within the next decade. The incidence rate of hepatocellular carcinoma varies significantly across countries and the latter can be attributed to the differences in risk factors that are prevalent across different countries. Some of the risk factors associated with hepatocellular carcinoma include hepatitis B and C infections, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and alcoholic liver disease. Regardless of the underlying aetiology, the end result is liver fibrosis and cirrhosis that ultimately progress into carcinoma. The treatment and management of hepatocellular carcinoma is complicated by treatment resistance and high tumor recurrence rates. Early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma are treated with liver resection and other forms of surgical therapy. Advanced stages of hepatocellular carcinoma can be treated with chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and the use of oncolytic viruses and these treatment options can be combined with nanotechnology to improve efficacy and reduce side effects. Moreover, chemotherapy and immunotherapy can be combined to further improve treatment efficacy and overcome resistance. Despite the treatment options available, the high mortality rates provide evidence that current treatment options for advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma are not achieving the desired therapeutic goals. Various clinical trials are ongoing to improve treatment efficacy, reduce recurrence rates, and ultimately prolong survival. This narrative review aims to provide an update on our current knowledge and future direction of research on hepatocellular carcinoma.

Recent advances in oncolytic virus therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a highly refractory cancer and the fourth leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Despite the development of a detailed treatment strategy for HCC, the survival rate remains unsatisfactory. Oncolytic virus has been extensively researched as a new cancer therapeutic agent in the treatment of HCC. Researchers have designed a variety of recombinant viruses based on natural oncolytic diseases, which can increase the targeting of oncolytic viruses to HCC and their survival in tumors, as well as kill tumor cells and inhibit the growth of HCC through a variety of mechanisms. The overall efficacy of oncolytic virus therapy is known to be influenced by anti-tumor immunity, toxic killing effect and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis, etc. Therefore, a comprehensive review of the multiple oncolytic mechanisms of oncolytic viruses in HCC has been conducted. So far, a large number of relevant clinical trials are under way or have been completed, and some encouraging results have been obtained. Studies have shown that oncolytic virus combined with other HCC therapies may be a feasible method, including local therapy, chemotherapy, molecular targeted therapy and immunotherapy. In addition, different delivery routes for oncolytic viruses have been studied so far. These studies make oncolytic virus a new and attractive drug for the treatment of HCC.

Oncolytic virotherapy: basic principles, recent advances and future directions

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

VG161 activates systemic antitumor immunity in pancreatic cancer models as a novel oncolytic herpesvirus expressing multiple immunomodulatory transgenes

The VG161 represents the first recombinant oncolytic herpes simplex virus type 1 carrying multiple synergistic antitumor immuno-modulating factors. Here, we report its antitumor mechanisms and thus provide firm theoretical foundation for the upcoming clinical application in pancreatic cancer. Generally, the VG161-mediated antitumor outcomes were analyzed by a collaboration of techniques, namely the single-cell sequencing, airflow-assisted desorption electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry imaging (AFADSI-MSI) and nanostring techniques. In vitro, the efficacy of VG161 together with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has been successfully shown to grant a long-term antitumor effect by altering tumor immunity and remodeling tumor microenvironment (TME) metabolisms. Cellular functional pathways and cell subtypes detected from patient samples before and after the treatment had undergone distinctive changes including upregulated CD8+ T and natural killer cells. More importantly, significant antitumor signals have emerged since the administration of VG161 injection. In conclusion, VG161 can systematically activate acquired and innate immunity in pancreatic models, as well as improve the tumor immune microenvironment, indicative of strong antitumor potential. The more robusting antitumor outcome for VG161 monotherapy or in combination with other therapies on pancreatic cancer is worth of being explored in further clinical trials.

Immunotherapy as a Therapeutic Strategy for Gastrointestinal Cancer-Current Treatment Options and Future Perspectives

Gastrointestinal (GI) cancer constitutes a highly lethal entity among malignancies in the last decades and is still a major challenge for cancer therapeutic options. Despite the current combinational treatment strategies, including chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy, and targeted therapies, the survival rates remain notably low for patients with advanced disease. A better knowledge of the molecular mechanisms that influence tumor progression and the development of optimal therapeutic strategies for GI malignancies are urgently needed. Currently, the development and the assessment of the efficacy of immunotherapeutic agents in GI cancer are in the spotlight of several clinical trials. Thus, several new modalities and combinational treatments with other anti-neoplastic agents have been identified and evaluated for their efficiency in cancer management, including immune checkpoint inhibitors, adoptive cell transfer, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy, cancer vaccines, and/or combinations thereof. Understanding the interrelation among the tumor microenvironment, cancer progression, and immune resistance is pivotal for the optimal therapeutic management of all gastrointestinal solid tumors. This review will shed light on the recent advances and future directions of immunotherapy for malignant tumors of the GI system.

Immunotherapies for hepatocellular carcinoma

Cases of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are rapidly rising. This is particularly the case in the Western world, as a result of increasing rates of chronic liver disease, secondary to lifestyle-associated risk factors and the lack of an established screening programme for the general population. Traditionally, radical/curative treatment options for HCC, including liver transplantation and surgical resection are reserved for the minority of patients, presenting with an early stage cancer. For patients with advanced disease, Sorafenib and Lenvatinib were, until recently, the only licensed systemic treatments, and provided only limited survival benefits at the cost of a multitude of potential side effects. Recent scientific advances in the field of cancer immunotherapy have renewed significant interest in advanced HCC, in order to fulfil this apparent area of unmet clinical need. This has led to the success and recent regulatory approval of an Atezolizumab/Bevacizumab combination for the first-line treatment of advanced HCC following results from the IMbrave150 clinical trial in 2019, with further immune checkpoint inhibitors currently undergoing testing in advanced clinical trials. Furthermore, other cancer immunotherapies, including chimeric antigen receptor T-cells, dendritic cell vaccines and oncolytic viruses are also in early stage clinical trials, for the treatment of advanced HCC. This review will summarise the major approaches that have been and are currently in development for the systemic treatment of advanced HCC, their advantages, drawbacks, and predictions of where this revolutionary treatment field will continue to travel for the foreseeable future.

Strategies for Targeting Gene Therapy in Cancer Cells With Tumor-Specific Promoters

Cancer is the second cause of death worldwide, surpassed only by cardiovascular diseases, due to the lack of early diagnosis, and high relapse rate after conventional therapies. Chemotherapy inhibits the rapid growth of cancer cells, but it also affects normal cells with fast proliferation rate. Therefore, it is imperative to develop other safe and more effective treatment strategies, such as gene therapy, in order to significantly improve the survival rate and life expectancy of patients with cancer. The aim of gene therapy is to transfect a therapeutic gene into the host cells to express itself and cause a beneficial biological effect. However, the efficacy of the proposed strategies has been insufficient for delivering the full potential of gene therapy in the clinic. The type of delivery vehicle (viral or non viral) chosen depends on the desired specificity of the gene therapy. The first gene therapy trials were performed with therapeutic genes driven by viral promoters such as the CMV promoter, which induces non-specific toxicity in normal cells and tissues, in addition to cancer cells. The use of tumor-specific promoters over-expressed in the tumor, induces specific expression of therapeutic genes in a given tumor, increasing their localized activity. Several cancer- and/or tumor-specific promoters systems have been developed to target cancer cells. This review aims to provide up-to-date information concerning targeting gene therapy with cancer- and/or tumor-specific promoters including cancer suppressor genes, suicide genes, anti-tumor angiogenesis, gene silencing, and gene-editing technology, as well as the type of delivery vehicle employed. Gene therapy can be used to complement traditional therapies to provide more effective treatments.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Oncolytic virotherapy in hepato-bilio-pancreatic cancer: The key to breaking the log jam?

Traditional therapies have limited efficacy in hepatocellular carcinoma, pancreatic cancer, and biliary tract cancer, especially for advanced and refractory cancers. Through a deeper understanding of antitumor immunity and the tumor microenvironment, novel immunotherapies are becoming available for cancer treatment. Oncolytic virus (OV) therapy is an emerging type of immunotherapy that has demonstrated effective antitumor efficacy in many preclinical studies and clinical studies. Thus, it may represent a potential feasible treatment for hard to treat gastrointestinal (GI) tumors. Here, we summarize the research progress of OV therapy for the treatment of hepato-bilio-pancreatic cancers. In general, most OV therapies exhibits potent, specific oncolysis both in cell lines in vitro and the animal models in vivo. Currently, several clinical trials have suggested that OV therapy may also be effective in patients with refractory hepato-bilio-pancreatic cancer. Multiple strategies such as introducing immunostimulatory genes, modifying virus capsid and combining various other therapeutic modalities have been shown enhanced specific oncolysis and synergistic anti-cancer immune stimulation. Combining OV with other antitumor therapies may become a more effective strategy than using virus alone. Nevertheless, more studies are needed to better understand the mechanisms underlying the therapeutic effects of OV, and to design appropriate dosing and combination strategies.