REO-001: A phase I trial of percutaneous intralesional administration of reovirus type 3 dearing (Reolysin®) in patients with advanced solid tumors. Invest New Drugs. 2013;31:696-706. [PMID: 22886613 DOI: 10.1007/s10637-012-9865-z]

Small extracellular vesicles carrying reovirus, tumor antigens, interferon-β, and damage-associated molecular patterns for efficient tumor treatment

Small extracellular vesicles (SEV) have attracted much attention both as mediators of intercellular communication and as drug delivery systems. In addition, recent studies have shown that SEV containing virus components and virus particles are released from virus-infected cells. Oncolytic viruses, which efficiently kill tumor cells by tumor cell-specific replication, have been actively studied as novel anticancer agents in clinical and preclinical studies. However, it remains to be fully elucidated whether SEV released from oncolytic virus-infected cells are involved in the antitumor effects of oncolytic viruses. In this study, we examined the tumor cell killing efficiencies and innate immune responses following treatment with SEV released from oncolytic reovirus-infected tumor cells in vitro and in vivo. Reovirus-infected B16 cells secreted SEV associated with or containing reovirus particles (Reo-SEV) with a diameter of approximately 130 nm and a zeta potential of -17 mV, although death of reovirus-infected B16 cells was not observed. The secreted Reo-SEV also contained interferon (IFN)-β, tumor antigens, and damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), including heat shock proteins (HSPs). Reo-SEV were secreted from the tumor tissues of reovirus-injected mice. Inhibition of the SEV secretion pathway using GW4869, which is a neutral sphingomyelinase inhibitor, resulted in significant reduction in the infectious titers of reovirus in the culture supernatants, suggesting that the cells released progeny virus via the SEV secretion pathway. Reo-SEV more efficiently killed mouse tumor cells and induced innate immune responses in mouse bone marrow-derived dendritic cells than reovirus. Reovirus and Reo-SEV mediated efficient and comparable levels of growth suppression of B16 subcutaneous tumors and induction of tumor infiltration of CD8+ T cells following intravenous administration. These results indicate that Reo-SEV are a promising oncolytic agent and that SEV are an effective delivery vehicle for oncolytic virus.

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.

Molecular insights and promise of oncolytic virus based immunotherapy

Discovering a therapeutic that can counteract the aggressiveness of this disease's mechanism is crucial for improving survival rates for cancer patients and for better understanding the most different types of cancer. In recent years, using these viruses as an anticancer therapy has been thought to be successful. They mostly work by directly destroying cancer cells, activating the immune system to fight cancer, and expressing exogenous effector genes. For the treatment of tumors, oncolytic viruses (OVs), which can be modified to reproduce only in tumor tissues and lyse them while preserving the healthy non-neoplastic host cells and reinstating antitumor immunity which present a novel immunotherapeutic strategy. OVs can exist naturally or be created in a lab by altering existing viruses. These changes heralded the beginning of a new era of less harmful virus-based cancer therapy. We discuss three different types of oncolytic viruses that have already received regulatory approval to treat cancer as well as clinical research using oncolytic adenoviruses. The primary therapeutic applications, mechanism of action of oncolytic virus updates, future views of this therapy will be covered in this chapter.

Neutralizing Antibodies Impair the Oncolytic Efficacy of Reovirus but Permit Effective Combination with T cell-Based Immunotherapies

Reovirus type 3 Dearing (Reo), manufactured for clinical application as pelareorep, is an attractive anticancer agent under evaluation in multiple phase 2 clinical trials for the treatment of solid tumors. It elicits its anticancer efficacy by inducing both oncolysis and intratumoral T-cell influx. Because most people have been preexposed to Reo, neutralizing antibodies (NAb) are prevalent in patients with cancer and might present a barrier to effective Reo therapy. Here, we tested serum of patients with cancer and healthy controls (n = 100) and confirmed that Reo NAbs are present in >80% of individuals. To investigate the effect of NAbs on both the oncolytic and the immunostimulatory efficacy of Reo, we established an experimental mouse model with Reo preexposure. The presence of preexposure-induced NAbs reduced Reo tumor infection and prevented Reo-mediated control of tumor growth after intratumoral Reo administration. In B cell-deficient mice, the lack of NAbs provided enhanced tumor growth control after Reo monotherapy, indicating that NAbs limit the oncolytic capacity of Reo. In immunocompetent mice, intratumoral T-cell influx was not affected by the presence of preexposure-induced NAbs and consequently, combinatorial immunotherapy strategies comprising Reo and T-cell engagers or checkpoint inhibitors remained effective in these settings, also after a clinically applied regimen of multiple intravenous pelareorep administrations. Altogether, our data indicate that NAbs hamper the oncolytic efficacy of Reo, but not its immunotherapeutic capacity. Given the high prevalence of seropositivity for Reo in patients with cancer, our data strongly advocate for the application of Reo as part of T cell-based immunotherapeutic strategies.

Anticancer Activity of Measles-Mumps-Rubella MMR Vaccine Viruses against Glioblastoma

BACKGROUND

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) have been utilized since 1990s for targeted cancer treatment. Our study examined the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine's cancer-killing potency against Glioblastoma (GBM), a therapy-resistant, aggressive cancer type.

METHODOLOGY

We used GBM cell lines, primary GBM cells, and normal mice microglial cells, to assess the MMR vaccine's efficacy through cell viability, cell cycle analysis, intracellular viral load via RT-PCR, and Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM).

RESULTS

After 72 h of MMR treatment, GBM cell lines and primary GBM cells exhibited significant viability reduction compared to untreated cells. Conversely, normal microglial cells showed only minor changes in viability and morphology. Intracellular viral load tests indicated GBM cells' increased sensitivity to MMR viruses compared to normal cells. The cell cycle study also revealed measles and mumps viruses' crucial role in cytopathic effects, with the rubella virus causing cell cycle arrest.

CONCLUSION

Herein the reported results demonstrate the anti-cancer activity of the MMR vaccine against GBM cells. Accordingly, the MMR vaccine warrants further study as a potential new tool for GBM therapy and relapse prevention. Therapeutic potential of the MMR vaccine has been found to be promising in earlier studies as well.

Oncolytic viruses against cancer, promising or delusion?

Cancer treatment is one of the most challenging topics in medical sciences. Different methods such as chemotherapy, tumor surgery, and immune checkpoint inhibitors therapy (ICIs) are potential approaches to treating cancer and killing tumor cells, but clinical studies have shown that they have been successful for a limited group of patients. Using viruses as a treatment can be considered as an effective treatment in the field of medicine. This is considered as a potential treatment, especially in comparison to chemotherapy, which has severe side effects related to the immune system. Most oncolytic viruses (OVs) have the potential to multiply in cancer cells, which are more than normal cells in malignant tissue and can induce immune responses. Therefore, tons of efforts and research have been started on the utilization of OVs as a treatment for cancer and have shown promising in treating cancers with less side effects. In this article, we have gathered studies about oncolytic viruses and their effectiveness in cancer treatment.Please confirm if the author names are presented accurately and in the correct sequence (given name, middle name/initial, family name). Author 1 Given name: [Omid Salahi] Last name [Ardekani], Author 2 Given name: [Mohammad Mehdi] Last name [Fazeli], Author 3 Given name: [Nillofar Asadi] Last name [Jemezghani]. Also, kindly confirm the details in the metadata are correct.Confirmed.

Modulation of Reoviral Cytolysis (II): Cellular Stemness

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) are an emerging cancer therapeutic that are intended to act by selectively targeting and lysing cancerous cells and by stimulating anti-tumour immune responses, while leaving normal cells mainly unaffected. Reovirus is a well-studied OV that is undergoing advanced clinical trials and has received FDA approval in selected circumstances. However, the mechanisms governing reoviral selectivity are not well characterised despite many years of effort, including those in our accompanying paper where we characterize pathways that do not consistently modulate reoviral cytolysis. We have earlier shown that reovirus is capable of infecting and lysing both certain types of cancer cells and also cancer stem cells, and here we demonstrate its ability to also infect and kill healthy pluripotent stem cells (PSCs). This led us to hypothesize that pathways responsible for stemness may constitute a novel route for the modulation of reoviral tropism. We find that reovirus is capable of killing both murine and human embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells. Differentiation of PSCs alters the cells' reoviral-permissive state to a resistant one. In a breast cancer cell line that was resistant to reoviral oncolysis, induction of pluripotency programming rendered the cells permissive to cytolysis. Bioinformatic analysis indicates that expression of the Yamanaka pluripotency factors may be associated with regulating reoviral selectivity. Mechanistic insights from these studies will be useful for the advancement of reoviral oncolytic therapy.

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.

Vaccinating against cancer: getting to prime time

Immunotherapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, cellular therapies, and T-cell engagers, have fundamentally changed our approach to treating cancer. However, successes with cancer vaccines have been more difficult to realize. While vaccines against specific viruses have been widely adopted to prevent the development of cancer, only two vaccines can improve survival in advanced disease: sipuleucel-T and talimogene laherparepvec. These represent the two approaches that have the most traction: vaccinating against cognate antigen and priming responses using tumors in situ. Here, we review the challenges and opportunities researchers face in developing therapeutic vaccines for cancer.

Oncolytic Reoviruses: Can These Emerging Zoonotic Reoviruses Be Tamed and Utilized?

Orthoreovirus is a nonenveloped double-stranded RNA virus under the Reoviridae family. This group of viruses, especially mammalian orthoreovirus (MRV), are reported with great therapeutic values due to their oncolytic effects. In this review, the life cycle and oncolytic effect of MRV and a few emerging reoviruses were summarized. This article also highlights the challenges and strategies of utilizing MRV and the emerging reoviruses, avian orthoreovirus (ARV) and pteropine orthoreovirus (PRV), as oncolytic viruses (OVs). Besides, the emergence of potential ARV and PRV as OVs were discussed in comparison to MRV. Finally, the risk of reovirus as zoonosis or reverse zoonosis (zooanthroponosis) were debated, and concerns were raised in this article, which warrant continue surveillance of reovirus (MRV, ARV, and PRV) in animals, humans, and the environment.

Therapy with oncolytic viruses: progress and challenges

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) are an emerging class of cancer therapeutics that offer the benefits of selective replication in tumour cells, delivery of multiple eukaryotic transgene payloads, induction of immunogenic cell death and promotion of antitumour immunity, and a tolerable safety profile that largely does not overlap with that of other cancer therapeutics. To date, four OVs and one non-oncolytic virus have been approved for the treatment of cancer globally although talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) remains the only widely approved therapy. T-VEC is indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent melanoma after initial surgery and was initially approved in 2015. An expanding body of data on the clinical experience of patients receiving T-VEC is now becoming available as are data from clinical trials of various other OVs in a range of other cancers. Despite increasing research interest, a better understanding of the underlying biology and pharmacology of OVs is needed to enable the full therapeutic potential of these agents in patients with cancer. In this Review, we summarize the available data and provide guidance on optimizing the use of OVs in clinical practice, with a focus on the clinical experience with T-VEC. We describe data on selected novel OVs that are currently in clinical development, either as monotherapies or as part of combination regimens. We also discuss some of the preclinical, clinical and regulatory hurdles that have thus far limited the development of OVs.

Rational selection of an ideal oncolytic virus to address current limitations in clinical translation

Oncolytic virus therapy (OVT) is a promising modality that leverages the propensity of natural or engineered viruses to selectively replicate in and kill cancer cells. Over the past decade, (pre)clinical studies have focused on the development and testing of adenovirus, herpes simplex virus, and vaccinia virus-based vectors. These studies have identified barriers to success confronting the field. Here, we propose a set of selection criteria or ideal properties of a successful oncolytic virus, which include lack of pathogenicity, low seroprevalence, selectivity (infection and replication), transgene carrying capacity, and genome stability. We use these requirements to analyze the oncolytic virus landscape, and then identify a potentially optimal species for platform development - vesicular stomatitis virus.

Current clinical landscape of oncolytic viruses as novel cancer immunotherapeutic and recent preclinical advancements

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) have been gaining attention in the pharmaceutical industry as a novel immunotherapeutic and therapeutic adjuvant due to their ability to induce and boost antitumor immunity through multiple mechanisms. First, intrinsic mechanisms of OVs that enable exploitation of the host immune system (e.g., evading immune detection) can nullify the immune escape mechanism of tumors. Second, many types of OVs have been shown to cause direct lysis of tumor cells, resulting in an induction of tumor-specific T cell response mediated by release of tumor-associated antigens and danger signal molecules. Third, armed OV-expressing immune stimulatory therapeutic genes could be highly expressed in tumor tissues to further improve antitumor immunity. Last, these OVs can inflame cold tumors and their microenvironment to be more immunologically favorable for other immunotherapeutics. Due to these unique characteristics, OVs have been tested as an adjuvant of choice in a variety of therapeutics. In light of these promising attributes of OVs in the immune-oncology field, the present review will examine OVs in clinical development and discuss various strategies that are being explored in preclinical stages for the next generation of OVs that are optimized for immunotherapy applications.

Progress and Prospect of Immunotherapy for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer (estimated 2.3 million new cases in 2020) and the leading cause of cancer death (estimated 685,000 deaths in 2020) in women globally. Breast cancers have been categorized into four major molecular subtypes based on the immunohistochemistry (IHC) expression of classic hormone and growth factor receptors including the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), as well as a proliferation marker Ki-67 protein expression. Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), a breast cancer subtype lacking ER, PR, and HER2 expression, is associated with a high metastatic potential and poor prognosis. TNBC accounts for approximately only 15%–20% of new breast cancer diagnoses; it is responsible for most breast cancer–related deaths due to the lack of targeted treatment options for this patient population, and currently, systemic chemotherapy, radiation, and surgical excision remain the major treatment modalities for these patients with TNBC. Although breast cancer patients in general do not have a robust response to the immunotherapy, a subset of TNBC has been demonstrated to have high tumor mutation burden and high tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, resembling the features observed on melanoma or lung cancers, which can benefit from the treatment of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Therefore, the immunogenic nature of this aggressive disease has presented an opportunity for the development of TNBC-targeting immunotherapies. The recent US Food and Drug Administration approval of atezolizumab in combination with the chemotherapeutic agent nab-paclitaxel for the treatment of PD-L1-positive unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic TNBC has led to a new era of immunotherapy in TNBC treatment. In addition, immunotherapy becomes an active research area, both in the cancer biology field and in the oncology field. In this review, we will extend our coverage on recent discoveries in preclinical research and early results in clinical trials from immune molecule-based therapy including cytokines, monoclonal antibodies, antibody–drug conjugates, bi-specific or tri-specific antibodies, ICIs, and neoantigen cancer vaccines; oncolytic virus-based therapies and adoptive immune cell transfer–based therapies including TIL, chimeric antigen receptor-T (CAR-T), CAR-NK, CAR-M, and T-cell receptor-T. In the end, we will list a series of the challenges and opportunities in immunotherapy prospectively and reveal novel technologies such as high-throughput single-cell sequencing and CRISPR gene editing-based screening to generate new knowledges of immunotherapy.

Engaging Pattern Recognition Receptors in Solid Tumors to Generate Systemic Antitumor Immunity

Malignant tumors frequently exploit innate immunity to evade immune surveillance. The priming, function, and polarization of antitumor immunity fundamentally depends upon context provided by the innate immune system, particularly antigen presenting cells. Such context is determined in large part by sensing of pathogen specific and damage associated features by pathogen recognition receptors (PRRs). PRR activation induces the delivery of T cell priming cues (e.g. chemokines, co-stimulatory ligands, and cytokines) from antigen presenting cells, playing a decisive role in the cancer immunity cycle. Indeed, endogenous PRR activation within the tumor microenvironment (TME) has been shown to generate spontaneous antitumor T cell immunity, e.g., cGAS-STING mediated activation of antigen presenting cells after release of DNA from dying tumor cells. Thus, instigating intratumor PRR activation, particularly with the goal of generating Th1-promoting inflammation that stokes endogenous priming of antitumor CD8⁺ T cells, is a growing area of clinical investigation. This approach is analogous to in situ vaccination, ultimately providing a personalized antitumor response against relevant tumor associated antigens. Here I discuss clinical stage intratumor modalities that function via activation of PRRs. These approaches are being tested in various solid tumor contexts including melanoma, colorectal cancer, glioblastoma, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, bladder cancer, and pancreatic cancer. Their mechanism (s) of action relative to other immunotherapy approaches (e.g., antigen-defined cancer vaccines, CAR T cells, dendritic cell vaccines, and immune checkpoint blockade), as well as their potential to complement these approaches are also discussed. Examples to be reviewed include TLR agonists, STING agonists, RIG-I agonists, and attenuated or engineered viruses and bacterium. I also review common key requirements for effective in situ immune activation, discuss differences between various strategies inclusive of mechanisms that may ultimately limit or preclude antitumor efficacy, and provide a summary of relevant clinical data.

Clinical Trials of Oncolytic Viruses in Breast Cancer

Breast cancer is the second most common kind of cancer worldwide and oncolytic viruses may offer a new treatment approach. There are three different types of oncolytic viruses used in clinical trials; (i) oncolytic viruses with natural anti-neoplastic properties; (ii) oncolytic viruses designed for tumor-selective replication; (iii) oncolytic viruses modified to activate the immune system. Currently, fourteen different oncolytic viruses have been investigated in eighteen published clinical trials. These trials demonstrate that oncolytic viruses are well tolerated and safe for use in patients and display clinical activity. However, these trials mainly studied a small number of patients with different advanced tumors including some with breast cancer. Future trials should focus on breast cancer and investigate optimal routes of administration, occurrence of neutralizing antibodies, viral gene expression, combinations with other antineoplastic therapies, and identify subtypes that are particularly suitable for oncolytic virotherapy.

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.

Development of oncolytic viruses for cancer therapy

Oncolytic virotherapy is a therapeutic approach that uses replication-competent viruses to kill cancers. The ability of oncolytic viruses to selectively replicate in cancer cells leads to direct cell lysis and induction of anticancer immune response. Like other anticancer therapies, oncolytic virotherapy has several limitations such as viral delivery to the target, penetration into the tumor mass, and antiviral immune responses. This review provides an insight into the different characteristics of oncolytic viruses (natural and genetically modified) that contribute to effective applications of oncolytic virotherapy in preclinical and clinical trials, and strategies to overcome the limitations. The potential of oncolytic virotherapy combining with other conventional treatments or cancer immunotherapies involving immune checkpoint inhibitors and CAR-T therapy could form part of future multimodality treatment strategies.

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.

Mesenchymal stem cells loaded with oncolytic reovirus enhances antitumor activity in mice models of colorectal cancer

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) are promising alternative biological agents for treating cancer. However, triggered immune responses against viruses and their delivery to tumor sites are their primary limitations in cancer therapy. To address these challenges, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) can serve as permissive tools for OVs loading and delivery to tumor sites. Here, we evaluated the in vitro and in vivo antitumor capability of adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (AD-MSCs) as a new vehicle for Dearing strain of reovirus (ReoT3D) loading. We first isolated and confirmed the purity of MSCs, and the optimized dose of ReoT3D for MSCs loading was computed by a standard assay. Next, we used murine CT26 cell line to establish the colorectal cancer model in BALB/c mice and demonstrated the antitumor effects of MSCs loaded with reovirus. Our results demonstrated that multiplicity of infection (MOI) 1 pfu/cells of reovirus was the safe dose for loading into purified MSCs. Moreover, our anticancer experiments exhibited that treatment with MSCs loaded with ReoT3D was more effective than ReoT3D and MSCs alone. Higher anticancer impact of MSCs loaded with OV was associated with induction of apoptosis, cell cycle arrests, P53 expression in tumor sections, and reduced tumor growth and size. The present results suggest that MSCs as a permissive shuttle for oncolytic virus (OV) delivery increased the anticancer activity of ReoT3D in mice models of colorectal cancer and these findings should be supported by more preclinical and clinical studies.

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.

Oncolytic Virotherapy for Cancer: Clinical Experience

Oncolytic viruses are a new class of therapeutics which are largely in the experimental stage, with just one virus approved by the FDA thus far. While the concept of oncolytic virotherapy is not new, advancements in the fields of molecular biology and virology have renewed the interest in using viruses as oncolytic agents. Backed by robust preclinical data, many oncolytic viruses have entered clinical trials. Oncolytic viruses that have completed some levels of clinical trials or are currently undergoing clinical trials are mostly genetically engineered viruses, with the exception of some RNA viruses. Reolysin, an unmodified RNA virus is clinically the most advanced oncolytic RNA virus that has completed different phases of clinical trials. Other oncolytic viruses that have been studied in clinical trials are mostly DNA viruses that belong to one of the three families: herpesviridae, poxviridae or adenoviridae. In this review work we discuss recent clinical studies with oncolytic viruses, especially herpesvirus, poxvirus, adenovirus and reovirus. In summary, the oncolytic viruses tested so far are well tolerated, even in immune-suppressed patients. For most oncolytic viruses, mild and acceptable toxicities are seen at the currently defined highest feasible doses. However, anti-tumor efficacies of oncolytic viruses have been modest, especially when used as monotherapy. Therefore, the potency of oncolytic viruses needs to be enhanced for more oncolytic viruses to hit the clinic. Aiming to achieve higher therapeutic benefits, oncolytic viruses are currently being studied in combination with other therapies. Here we discuss the currently available clinical data on oncolytic viruses, either as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments.

Intratumoral OH2, an oncolytic herpes simplex virus 2, in patients with advanced solid tumors: a multicenter, phase I/II clinical trial

BACKGROUND

OH2 is a genetically engineered oncolytic herpes simplex virus type 2 designed to selectively amplify in tumor cells and express granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor to enhance antitumor immune responses. We investigated the safety, tolerability and antitumor activity of OH2 as single agent or in combination with HX008, an anti-programmed cell death protein 1 antibody, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

METHODS

In this multicenter, phase I/II trial, we enrolled patients with standard treatment-refractory advanced solid tumors who have injectable lesions. In phase I, patients received intratumoral injection of OH2 at escalating doses (10⁶, 10⁷ and 10⁸CCID50/mL) as single agent or with fixed-dose HX008. The recommended doses were then expanded in phase II. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability defined by the maximum-tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in phase I, and antitumor activity assessed per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST version 1.1) and immune-RECIST in phase II.

RESULTS

Between April 17, 2019 and September 22, 2020, 54 patients with metastatic cancers were enrolled. Forty patients were treated with single agent OH2, and 14 with OH2 plus HX008. No DLTs were reported with single agent OH2 in phase I. Four patients, having metastatic mismatch repair-proficient rectal cancer or metastatic esophageal cancer, achieved immune-partial response, with two from the single agent cohort and two from the combination cohort. The duration of response were 11.25+ and 14.03+ months for the two responders treated with single agent OH2, and 1.38+ and 2.56+ months for the two responders in the combination cohort. The most common treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) with single agent OH2 was fever (n=18, 45.0%). All TRAEs were of grade 1-2, except one case of grade 3 fever in the 10⁸CCID50/mL group. No treatment-related serious AEs occurred. Single agent OH2 induced alterations in the tumor microenvironment, with clear increases in CD3⁺ and CD8⁺ cell density and programmed death-ligand 1 expression in the patients' post-treatment biopsies relative to baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Intratumoral injection of OH2 was well-tolerated, and demonstrated durable antitumor activity in patients with metastatic esophageal and rectal cancer. Further clinical development of OH2 as single agent or with immune checkpoint inhibitors in selected tumor types is warranted.

Delivery of cancer therapies by synthetic and bio-inspired nanovectors

BACKGROUND

As a complement to the clinical development of new anticancer molecules, innovations in therapeutic vectorization aim at solving issues related to tumor specificity and associated toxicities. Nanomedicine is a rapidly evolving field that offers various solutions to increase clinical efficacy and safety. MAIN: Here are presented the recent advances for different types of nanovectors of chemical and biological nature, to identify the best suited for translational research projects. These nanovectors include different types of chemically engineered nanoparticles that now come in many different flavors of 'smart' drug delivery systems. Alternatives with enhanced biocompatibility and a better adaptability to new types of therapeutic molecules are the cell-derived extracellular vesicles and micro-organism-derived oncolytic viruses, virus-like particles and bacterial minicells. In the first part of the review, we describe their main physical, chemical and biological properties and their potential for personalized modifications. The second part focuses on presenting the recent literature on the use of the different families of nanovectors to deliver anticancer molecules for chemotherapy, radiotherapy, nucleic acid-based therapy, modulation of the tumor microenvironment and immunotherapy.

CONCLUSION

This review will help the readers to better appreciate the complexity of available nanovectors and to identify the most fitting "type" for efficient and specific delivery of diverse anticancer therapies.

Oncolytic Virotherapy in Solid Tumors: The Challenges and Achievements

Oncolytic virotherapy (OVT) is a promising approach in cancer immunotherapy. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) could be applied in cancer immunotherapy without in-depth knowledge of tumor antigens. The capability of genetic modification makes OVs exciting therapeutic tools with a high potential for manipulation. Improving efficacy, employing immunostimulatory elements, changing the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) to inflammatory TME, optimizing their delivery system, and increasing the safety are the main areas of OVs manipulations. Recently, the reciprocal interaction of OVs and TME has become a hot topic for investigators to enhance the efficacy of OVT with less off-target adverse events. Current investigations suggest that the main application of OVT is to provoke the antitumor immune response in the TME, which synergize the effects of other immunotherapies such as immune-checkpoint blockers and adoptive cell therapy. In this review, we focused on the effects of OVs on the TME and antitumor immune responses. Furthermore, OVT challenges, including its moderate efficiency, safety concerns, and delivery strategies, along with recent achievements to overcome challenges, are thoroughly discussed.

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.

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.

Oncolytic immunotherapy and bortezomib synergy improves survival of refractory multiple myeloma in a preclinical model

The oncolytic reovirus (RV) has demonstrated clinical efficacy and minimal toxicity in a variety of cancers, including multiple myeloma (MM). MM is a malignancy of plasma cells that is considered treatable but incurable because of the 90% relapse rate that is primarily from drug resistance. The systemic nature of MM and the antitumor immunosuppression by its tumor microenvironment presents an ongoing therapeutic challenge. In the present study, we demonstrate that RV synergizes with the standard-of-care MM drug bortezomib (BTZ) and, importantly, enhances its therapeutic potential in therapy-resistant human MM cell lines in vitro. Using the syngeneic Vk*MYC BTZ-resistant immunocompetent transplantable MM murine model, we also demonstrate that mice harboring BTZ-insensitive MM tumors respond to the RV/BTZ combination treatment in terms of decreased tumor burden and improved overall survival (P < .00001). We demonstrate that BTZ augments RV replication in tumor-associated endothelial cells and myeloma cells, leading to enhanced viral delivery and thereby stimulating cytokine release, immune activity, apoptosis, and reduction of the MM-associated immune suppression. We conclude that combined RV/BTZ is an attractive therapeutic strategy with no safety signals for the treatment of MM.

Viral Vector-Based Melanoma Gene Therapy

Gene therapy applications of oncolytic viruses represent an attractive alternative for cancer treatment. A broad range of oncolytic viruses, including adenoviruses, adeno-associated viruses, alphaviruses, herpes simplex viruses, retroviruses, lentiviruses, rhabdoviruses, reoviruses, measles virus, Newcastle disease virus, picornaviruses and poxviruses, have been used in diverse preclinical and clinical studies for the treatment of various diseases, including colon, head-and-neck, prostate and breast cancer as well as squamous cell carcinoma and glioma. The majority of studies have focused on immunotherapy and several drugs based on viral vectors have been approved. However, gene therapy for malignant melanoma based on viral vectors has not been utilized to its full potential yet. This review represents a summary of the achievements of preclinical and clinical studies using viral vectors, with the focus on malignant melanoma.

Recent advances of oncolytic virus in cancer therapy

Oncolytic viruses have been taking the front stage in biological therapy for cancer recently. The first and most potent virus to be used in oncolytic virotherapy is human adenovirus. Recently, ongoing extensive research has suggested that other viruses like herpes simplex virus (HSV) and measles virus can also be considered as potential candidates in cancer therapy. An HSV-based oncolytic virus, T-VEC, has completed phase Ш clinical trial and has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in biological cancer therapy. Moreover, the vaccine strain of the measles virus has shown impressive results in pre-clinical and clinical trials. Considering their therapeutic efficacy, safety, and reduced side effects, the use of such engineered viruses in biological cancer therapy has the potential to establish a milestone in cancer research. In this review, we summarize the recent clinical advances in the use of oncolytic viruses in biological therapy for cancer. Additionally, this review evaluates the potential viral candidates for their benefits and shortcomings and sheds light on the future prospects.

Virus-Receptor Interactions: Structural Insights For Oncolytic Virus Development

Recent advancements in oncolytic virotherapy commend a special attention to developing new strategies for targeting cancer cells with oncolytic viruses (OVs). Modifications of the viral envelope or coat proteins serve as a logical mean of repurposing viruses for cancer treatment. In this review, we discuss how detailed structural knowledge of the interactions between OVs and their natural receptors provide valuable insights into tumor specificity of some viruses and re-targeting of alternate receptors for broad tumor tropism or improved tumor selectivity.

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.

Liposome Encapsulation of Oncolytic Virus M1 To Reduce Immunogenicity and Immune Clearance in Vivo

Oncolytic viral therapy is an attractive novel strategy for cancer therapy. As a natural alphavirus, oncolytic virus M1 is able to infect and kill various zinc finger antiviral protein (ZAP)-deficient tumor cells selectively, while leaving normal cells undamaged. However, M1 can trigger the production of neutralizing antibodies that dramatically weaken its antitumor effect. In order to attenuate immunogenicity of the therapeutic M1 virus, we encapsulated it into liposomes (referred to as M-LPO) using the thin-film hydration method. The effect of anti-M1 neutralizing antibody on M-LPO was examined in LoVo and Hep 3B cell lines. In the absence of neutralizing antibodies, treating cells with naked M1, blank liposomes (LPO), M-LPO, or a simple mixture of M1 and liposomes (LPO+M1) inhibited cell growth. In the presence of neutralizing antibodies, only M-LPO inhibited cell growth. After intravenous administration, M-LPO reduced the production of the M1-neutralizing antibody and the corresponding immune response. Analysis of the M-LPO uptake by cells was examined by confocal microscopy using M1 labeled with FITC and liposomal shells labeled with RhB. The results suggest that M1 may be released from liposomes before or after M-LPO internalization. Taken together, our results suggest that encapsulating oncolytic virus M1 in liposomes may reduce intrinsic viral immunogenicity for improved anticancer therapy.

The Role of Oncolytic Viruses in the Treatment of Melanoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Oncolytic virotherapy is a new approach to the treatment of cancer and its success in the treatment of melanoma represents a breakthrough in cancer therapeutics. This paper provides a review of the current literature on the use of oncolytic viruses (OVs) in the treatment of melanoma.

RECENT FINDINGS

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is the first OV approved for the treatment of melanoma and presents new challenges as it enters the clinical setting. Several other OVs are at various stages of clinical and pre-clinical development for the treatment of melanoma. Reports from phase Ib-III clinical trials combining T-VEC with checkpoint blockade are encouraging and demonstrate potential added benefit of combination immunotherapy. OVs have recently emerged as a standard treatment option for patients with advanced melanoma. Several OVs and therapeutic combinations are in development. Immunooncolytic virotherapy combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors is promising for the treatment of advanced melanoma.

Enhanced cytotoxicity of reovirus and radiotherapy in melanoma cells is mediated through increased viral replication and mitochondrial apoptotic signalling

Oncolytic viruses selectively target and replicate in cancer cells, providing us with a unique tool with which to target and kill tumour cells. These viruses come from a diverse range of viral families including reovirus type 3 Dearing (RT3D), a non-pathogenic human double-stranded RNA oncolytic virus, which has been shown to be an effective therapeutic agent, both as a mono-therapy and in combination with traditional chemotherapeutic drugs. This study investigated the interaction between RT3D and radiotherapy in melanoma cell lines with a BRAF mutant, Ras mutant or BRAF/Ras wild type genotype. The data indicates that RT3D combined with radiotherapy significantly increased cytotoxicity relative to either single agent, independent of genotype, both in vitro and in vivo. The mechanism of enhanced cytotoxicity was dependent on an increase in viral replication, mediated by CUG2 up-regulation and subsequent down-regulation of pPKR and p-eIF2α, leading to the activation of mitochondrial apoptotic signalling resulting in increased cell death.

Oncolytic Virotherapy for Breast Cancer Treatment

Breast cancer continues to be a leading cause of mortality among women. While at an early stage, localized breast cancer is easily treated; however, advanced stages of disease continue to carry a high mortality rate. The discrepancy in treatment success highlights that current treatments are insufficient to treat advanced-stage breast cancer. As new and improved treatments have been sought, one therapeutic approach has gained considerable attention. Oncolytic viruses are uniquely capable of targeting cancer cells through intrinsic or engineered means. They come in many forms, mainly from four major virus groups as defined by the Baltimore classification system. These vectors can target and kill cancer cells, and even stimulate immunotherapeutic effects in patients. This review discusses not only individual oncolytic viruses pursued in the context of breast cancer treatment but also the emergence of combination therapies with current or new therapies, which has become a particularly promising strategy for treatment of breast cancer. Overall, oncolytic virotherapy is a promising strategy for increased treatment efficacy for advanced breast cancer and consequently provides a unique platform for personalized treatments in patients.

Anti-tumor efficacy of oncolytic reovirus against gastrointestinal stromal tumor cells

Imatinib, a multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is used as the standard initial therapy against inoperable gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). However, GIST can acquire resistance to imatinib within several years of therapy. The development of oncolytic reovirus as an anticancer agent has expanded to many clinical trials for various tumors. Here, we investigated whether reovirus has antitumor activity against GIST cells in the setting of imatinib sensitivity in vitro and in vivo. Cell proliferation and apoptosis assays were performed using a human GIST cell line, GIST-T1, and imatinib-resistant GIST (GIST-IR) cells that we established. The molecular pathways responsible for cell damage by reovirus were explored using PCR-arrays and Western blots. Reovirus significantly induced apoptotic cell death in GIST-T1 and GIST-IR cells in vitro, despite differences in the activation of receptor tyrosine kinase pathways between GIST-T1 and GIST-IR. Molecular assays indicated the possibility that reovirus induces apoptotic cell death via Fas signaling. Furthermore, in vivo mouse tumor xenograft models demonstrated a significant anti-tumor effect of reovirus on both GIST-T1 and GIST-IR cells. Our results demonstrate the therapeutic potential of reovirus against GIST.

Review: Oncolytic virotherapy, updates and future directions

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) are viral strains that can infect and kill malignant cells while spare their normal counterparts. OVs can access cells through binding to receptors on their surface or through fusion with the plasma membrane and establish a lytic cycle in tumors, while leaving normal tissue essentially unharmed. Multiple viruses have been investigated in humans for the past century. IMLYGIC™ (T-VEC/Talimogene Laherparepvec), a genetically engineered Herpes Simplex Virus, is the first OV approved for use in the United States and the European Union for patients with locally advanced or non-resectable melanoma. Although OVs have a favorable toxicity profile and are impressively active anticancer agents in vitro and in vivo the majority of OVs have limited clinical efficacy as a single agent. While a virus-induced antitumor immune response can enhance oncolysis, when OVs are used systemically, the antiviral immune response can prevent the virus reaching the tumor tissue and having a therapeutic effect. Intratumoral administration can provide direct access to tumor tissue and be beneficial in reducing side effects. Immune checkpoint stimulation in tumor tissue has been noted after OV therapy and can be a natural response to viral-induced oncolysis. Also for immune checkpoint inhibition to be effective in treating cancer, an immune response to tumor neoantigens and an inflamed tumor microenvironment are required, both of which treatment with an OV may provide. Therefore, direct and indirect mechanisms of tumor killing provide rationale for clinical trials investigating the combination of OVs other forms of cancer therapy, including immune checkpoint inhibition.

Oncolytic reovirus therapy: Pilot study in dogs with spontaneously occurring tumours

Oncolytic virotherapy is a novel treatment involving replication-competent virus in the elimination of cancer. We have previously reported the oncolytic effects of reovirus in various canine cancer cell lines. This study aims to establish the safety profile of reovirus in dogs with spontaneously occurring tumours and to determine a recommended dosing regimen. Nineteen dogs with various tumours, mostly of advanced stages, were treated with reovirus, ranging from 1.0 × 10⁸ to 5.0 × 10⁹ TCID₅₀ given as intratumour injection (IT) or intravenous infusion (IV) daily for up to 5 consecutive days in 1 or multiple treatment cycles. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to the Veterinary Cooperative Oncology Group- Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (VCOG-CTCAE) v1.1 guidelines. Viral shedding, neutralizing anti-reovirus antibody (NARA) production and immunohistochemical (IHC) detection of reovirus protein in the tumours were also assessed. AE was not observed in most dogs and events were limited to Grade I or II fever, vomiting, diarrhoea and inflammation of the injected tumour. No infectious virus was shed and all dogs had elevated NARA levels post-treatment. Although IHC results were only available in 6 dogs, 4 were detected positive for reovirus protein. In conclusion, reovirus is well-tolerated and can be given safely to tumour-bearing dogs according to the dosing regimen used in this study without significant concerns of viral shedding. Reovirus is also potentially effective in various types of canine tumours.

Oncolytic immunotherapy: unlocking the potential of viruses to help target cancer

Oncolytic immunotherapy is a research area of cancer immunotherapy investigating the use of modified viruses to target cancer cells. A variety of different viral backbones (e.g., adenovirus, reovirus) with a diverse range of genetic modifications are currently being investigated for the treatment of a variety of cancers. The oncolytic virus that has advanced the furthest in clinical development is talimogene laherparepvec, a recombinant HSV-1 virus expressing granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). In a phase 3 study in patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma, intralesional talimogene laherparepvec treatment resulted in a higher durable response rate compared with subcutaneous GM-CSF treatment (16.3 versus 2.1%; P < 0.001). Notably, responses were observed at uninjected lesions including visceral lesions, indicating a systemic antitumor response had occurred. Studies evaluating combination treatments involving oncolytic viruses and immunologic agents are ongoing. This review focuses on the mechanisms of action for oncolytic viruses and highlights select agents and combinations currently in development.

Preclinical Safety Studies of Enadenotucirev, a Chimeric Group B Human-Specific Oncolytic Adenovirus

Enadenotucirev is an oncolytic group B adenovirus identified by a process of bio-selection for the ability to selectively propagate in and rapidly kill carcinoma cells. It is resistant to inactivation by human blood components, potentially enabling intravenous dosing in patients with metastatic cancer. However, there are no known permissive animal models described for group B adenoviruses that could facilitate a conventional approach to preclinical safety studies. In this manuscript, we describe our tailored preclinical strategy designed to evaluate the key biological properties of enadenotucirev. As enadenotucirev does not replicate in animal cells, a panel of primary human cells was used to evaluate enadenotucirev replication selectivity in vitro, demonstrating that virus genome levels were >100-fold lower in normal cells relative to tumor cells. Acute intravenous tolerability in mice was used to assess virus particle-mediated toxicology and effects on innate immunity. These studies showed that particle toxicity could be ameliorated by dose fractionation, using an initial dose of virus to condition the host such that cytokine responses to subsequent doses were significantly attenuated. This, in turn, supported the initiation of a phase I intravenous clinical trial with a starting dose of 1 × 1010 virus particles given on days 1, 3, and 5.

Reolysin and Histone Deacetylase Inhibition in the Treatment of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) are emerging as powerful anti-cancer agents and are currently being tested for their safety and efficacy in patients. Reovirus (Reolysin), a naturally occurring non-pathogenic, double-stranded RNA virus, has natural oncolytic activity and is being tested in phase I-III clinical trials in a variety of tumor types. With its recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) orphan drug designation for several tumor types, Reolysin is a potential therapeutic agent for various cancers, including head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCCs), which have a 5-year survival of ∼55%. Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACis) comprise a structurally diverse class of compounds with targeted anti-cancer effects. The first FDA-approved HDACi, vorinostat (suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid [SAHA]), is currently being tested in patients with head and neck cancer. Recent findings indicate that HDAC inhibition in myeloma cells results in the upregulation of the Reolysin entry receptor, junctional adhesion molecule 1 (JAM-1), facilitating reovirus infection and tumor cell killing both in vitro and in vivo. In this study, we tested the anti-tumor efficacy of HDAC inhibitors AR-42 or SAHA in conjunction with Reolysin in HNSCCs. While HDAC inhibition increased JAM-1 and reovirus entry, the impact of this combination therapy was tested on the development of anti-tumor immune responses.

Serotype-Specific Killing of Large Cell Carcinoma Cells by Reovirus

Reovirus is under development as a therapeutic for numerous types of cancer. In contrast to other oncolytic viruses, the safety and efficacy of reovirus have not been improved through genetic manipulation. Here, we tested the oncolytic capacity of recombinant strains (rs) of prototype reovirus laboratory strains T1L and T3D (rsT1L and rsT3D, respectively) in a panel of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cell lines. We found that rsT1L was markedly more cytolytic than rsT3D in the large cell carcinoma cell lines tested, whereas killing of adenocarcinoma cell lines was comparable between rsT1L and rsT3D. Importantly, non-recombinant T1L and T3D phenocopied the kinetics and magnitude of cell death induced by recombinant strains. We identified gene segments L2, L3, and M1 as viral determinants of strain-specific differences cell killing of the large cell carcinoma cell lines. Together, these results indicate that recombinant reoviruses recapitulate the cell killing properties of non-recombinant, tissue culture-passaged strains. These studies provide a baseline for the use of reverse genetics with the specific objective of engineering more effective reovirus oncolytics. This work raises the possibility that type 1 reoviruses may have the capacity to serve as more effective oncolytics than type 3 reoviruses in some tumor types.

Replication and Oncolytic Activity of an Avian Orthoreovirus in Human Hepatocellular Carcinoma Cells

Oncolytic viruses are cancer therapeutics with promising outcomes in pre-clinical and clinical settings. Animal viruses have the possibility to avoid pre-existing immunity in humans, while being safe and immunostimulatory. We isolated an avian orthoreovirus (ARV-PB1), and tested it against a panel of hepatocellular carcinoma cells. We found that ARV-PB1 replicated well and induced strong cytopathic effects. It was determined that one mechanism of cell death was through syncytia formation, resulting in apoptosis and induction of interferon stimulated genes (ISGs). As hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a major cause of hepatocellular carcinoma worldwide, we investigated the effect of ARV-PB1 against cells already infected with this virus. Both HCV replicon-containing and infected cells supported ARV-PB1 replication and underwent cytolysis. Finally, we generated in silico models to compare the structures of human reovirus- and ARV-PB1-derived S1 proteins, which are the primary targets of neutralizing antibodies. Tertiary alignments confirmed that ARV-PB1 differs from its human homolog, suggesting that immunity to human reoviruses would not be a barrier to its use. Therefore, ARV-PB1 can potentially expand the repertoire of oncolytic viruses for treatment of human hepatocellular carcinoma and other malignancies.