Biodistribution, shedding, and transmissibility of the oncolytic virus talimogene laherparepvec in patients with melanoma

Safety of non-replicative and oncolytic replication-selective HSV vectors

Herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) is a DNA virus and human pathogen used to construct promising therapeutic vectors. HSV-1 vectors fall into two classes: replication-selective oncolytic vectors for cancer therapy and defective non-replicative vectors for gene therapy. Vectors from each class can accommodate ≥30 kb of inserts, have been approved clinically, and demonstrate a relatively benign safety profile. Despite oncolytic HSV (oHSV) replication in tumors and elicited immune responses, the virus is well tolerated in cancer patients. Current non-replicative vectors elicit only limited immune responses. Seropositivity and immune responses against HSV-1 do not eliminate either the vector or infected cells, and the vectors can therefore be re-administered. In this review we highlight vectors that have been translated to the clinic and host-virus immune interactions that impact on the safety and efficacy of HSVs.

Intratumoral Injection of Immunotherapeutics: State of the Art and Future Directions

Systemic immunotherapies have led to tremendous progress across the cancer landscape. However, several challenges exist, potentially limiting their efficacy in the treatment of solid tumors. Direct intratumoral injection can increase the therapeutic index of immunotherapies while overcoming many of the barriers associated with systemic administration, including limited bioavailability to tumors and potential systemic safety concerns. However, challenges remain, including the lack of standardized approaches for administration, issues relating to effective drug delivery, logistical hurdles, and safety concerns specific to this mode of administration. This article reviews the biologic rationale for the localized injection of immunotherapeutic agents into tumors. It also addresses the existing limitations and practical considerations for safe and effective implementation and provide recommendations for optimizing logistics and treatment workflows. It also highlights the critical role that radiologists, interventional radiologists, and medical physicists play in intratumoral immunotherapy with respect to target selection, image-guided administration, and response assessment.

Pharmacokinetic enhancement of oncolytic virus M1 by inhibiting JAK‒STAT pathway

Oncolytic viruses (OVs), a group of replication-competent viruses that can selectively infect and kill cancer cells while leaving healthy cells intact, are emerging as promising living anticancer agents. Unlike traditional drugs composed of non-replicating compounds or biomolecules, the replicative nature of viruses confer unique pharmacokinetic properties that require further studies. Despite some pharmacokinetics studies of OVs, mechanistic insights into the connection between OV pharmacokinetics and antitumor efficacy remain vague. Here, we characterized the pharmacokinetic profile of oncolytic virus M1 (OVM) in immunocompetent mouse tumor models and identified the JAK‒STAT pathway as a key modulator of OVM pharmacokinetics. By suppressing the JAK‒STAT pathway, early OVM pharmacokinetics are ameliorated, leading to enhanced tumor-specific viral accumulation, increased AUC and Cmax, and improved antitumor efficacy. Rather than compromising antitumor immunity after JAK‒STAT inhibition, the improved pharmacokinetics of OVM promotes T cell recruitment and activation in the tumor microenvironment, providing an optimal opportunity for the therapeutic outcome of immune checkpoint blockade, such as anti-PD-L1. Taken together, this study advances our understanding of the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship in OV therapy.

Breaking the barriers in cancer care: The next generation of herpes simplex virus-based oncolytic immunotherapies for cancer treatment

Since the US Food and Drug Administration first approved talimogene laherparepvec for the treatment of melanoma in 2015, the field of oncolytic immunotherapy (OI) has rapidly evolved. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies assessing the clinical activity of OIs across a wide range of tumor types. Further understanding of the mechanisms underlying the anti-tumor immune response has led to the development of OIs with improved immune-mediated preclinical efficacy. In this review, we discuss the key approaches for developing the next generation of herpes simplex virus-based OIs. Modifications to the viral genome and incorporation of transgenes to promote safety, tumor-selective replication, and immune stimulation are reviewed. We also review the advantages and disadvantages of intratumoral versus intravenous administration, summarize clinical evidence supporting the use of OIs as a strategy to overcome resistance to immune checkpoint blockade, and consider emerging opportunities to improve OI efficacy in the combination setting.

The efficacy and safety assessment of oncolytic virotherapies in the treatment of advanced melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of oncolytic virotherapies in the treatment of advanced melanoma still remains controversal. It is necessary to conduct quantitative evaluation on the basis of preclinical trial reports.

METHODS

Publicly available databases (PubMed, Embase, Medline, Web of Science and Cochrane Library.) and register (Clinicaltrials.gov) were searched to collect treatment outcomes of oncolytic virotherapies (including herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV), coxsackievirus A21 (CVA21), adenovirus, poxvirus and reovirus) for advanced/unresectable melanoma. Comparisons of treatment response, adverse events (AEs) and survival analyses for different virotherapies were performed by R software based on the extracted data from eligible studies.

RESULTS

Finally, thirty-four eligible studies were analysed and HSV virotherapy had the highest average complete response (CR, 24.8%) and HSV had a slightly higher average overall response rate (ORR) than CVA21 (43.8% vs 42.6%). In the pooled results of comparing talimogene laherparepve (T-VEC) with or without GM-CSF/ICIs (immune checkpoint inhibitors) to GM-CSF/ICIs monotherapy suggested virotherapy was more efficient in subgroups CR (RR = 1.80, 95% CI [1.30; 2.51], P < 0.01), ORR (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.02; 1.34], P < 0.05), and DCR (RR = 1.27, 95% CI [1.15; 1.40], P < 0.01). In patients treated with T-VEC+ICIs, 2-year overall survival (12.1 ± 6.9 months) and progression-free survival (9.9 ± 6.9) were significantly longer than those treated with T-VEC alone. Furthermore, we found that AEs occurred frequently in virotherapy but decreased in a large cohort of enrolled patients, some of which, such as abdominal distension/pain, injection site pain and pruritus, were found to be positively associated with disease progression in patients treated with T-VEC monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Given the relative safety and tolerability of oncolytic viruses, and the lack of reports of dose-limiting-dependent toxicities, more patients treated with T-VEC with or without ICIs should be added to future assessment analyses. There is still a long way to go before it can be used as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced or unresectable melanoma.

Modeling of oncolytic viruses in a heterogeneous cell population to predict spread into non-cancerous cells

New cancer treatment modalities that limit patient discomfort need to be developed. One possible new therapy is the use of oncolytic (cancer-killing) viruses. It is only recently that our ability to manipulate viral genomes has allowed us to consider deliberately infecting cancer patients with viruses. One key consideration is to ensure that the virus exclusively targets cancer cells and does not harm nearby non-cancerous cells. Here, we use a mathematical model of viral infection to determine the characteristics a virus would need to have in order to eradicate a tumor, but leave non-cancerous cells untouched. We conclude that the virus must differ in its ability to infect the two different cell types, with the infection rate of non-cancerous cells needing to be less than one hundredth of the infection rate of cancer cells. Differences in viral production rate or infectious cell death rate alone are not sufficient to protect non-cancerous cells.

Biosafety and biohazard considerations of HSV-1-based oncolytic viral immunotherapy

Oncolytic viral immunotherapies are agents which can directly kill tumor cells and activate an immune response. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) range from native/unmodified viruses to genetically modified, attenuated viruses with the capacity to preferentially replicate in and kill tumors, leaving normal tissue unharmed. Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is the only OV approved for patient use in the United States; however, during the last 20 years, there have been a substantial number of clinical trials using OV immunotherapies across a broad range of cancers. Like T-VEC, many OV immunotherapies in clinical development are based on the herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), with genetic modifications for tumor selectivity, safety, and immunogenicity. Despite these modifications, HSV-1 OV immunotherapies are often treated with the same biosafety guidelines as the wild-type virus, potentially leading to reduced patient access and logistical hurdles for treatment centers, including community treatment centers and small group or private practices, and healthcare workers. Despite the lack of real-world evidence documenting possible transmission to close contacts, and in the setting of shedding and biodistribution analyses for T-VEC demonstrating limited infectivity and low risk of spread to healthcare workers, barriers to treatment with OV immunotherapies remain. With comprehensive information and educational programs, our hope is that updated biosafety guidance on OV immunotherapies will reduce logistical hurdles to ensure that patients have access to these innovative and potentially life-saving medicines across treatment settings. This work reviews a comprehensive collection of data in conjunction with the opinions of the authors based on their clinical experience to provide the suggested framework and key considerations for implementing biosafety protocols for OV immunotherapies, namely T-VEC, the only approved agent to date.

Oncolytic Viruses: An Inventory of Shedding Data from Clinical Trials and Elements for the Environmental Risk Assessment

Attenuated and/or genetically modified oncolytic viruses (OV) gain increasing interest as a promising approach for cancer therapy. Beside the assessment of subject safety, quality and efficacy aspects of medicinal products for human use, genetically modified viruses are also governed by EU regulatory frameworks requiring an environmental risk assessment (ERA). An important element to be assessed as part of the ERA is the incidence of exposure to OV of individuals, other than the trial subjects, and the environment. The evidence-based evaluation of shedding data is considered to be decisive in that context, as it may impact the OV capacity to be transmitted. This is particularly true for OV still able to (conditionally) replicate as opposed to replication-defective viral vectors commonly used in gene therapy or vaccination. To our knowledge, this article presents the most extensive and up-to-date review of shedding data reported with OV employed in clinics. Besides the identification of a topical need for improving the collection of shedding data, this article aims at providing an aid to the design of an appropriate shedding study, thereby relying on and further complementing principles described in existing guidelines issued by European and international institutions.

Oncolytic virotherapy evolved into the fourth generation as tumor immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Oncolytic virotherapy (OVT) is a promising anti-tumor modality that utilizes oncolytic viruses (OVs) to preferentially attack cancers rather than normal tissues. With the understanding particularly in the characteristics of viruses and tumor cells, numerous innovative OVs have been engineered to conquer cancers, such as Talimogene Laherparepvec (T-VEC) and tasadenoturev (DNX-2401). However, the therapeutic safety and efficacy must be further optimized and balanced to ensure the superior safe and efficient OVT in clinics, and reasonable combination therapy strategies are also important challenges worthy to be explored.

MAIN BODY

Here we provided a critical review of the development history and status of OVT, emphasizing the mechanisms of enhancing both safety and efficacy. We propose that oncolytic virotherapy has evolved into the fourth generation as tumor immunotherapy. Particularly, to arouse T cells by designing OVs expressing bi-specific T cell activator (BiTA) is a promising strategy of killing two birds with one stone. Amazing combination of therapeutic strategies of OVs and immune cells confers immense potential for managing cancers. Moreover, the attractive preclinical OVT addressed recently, and the OVT in clinical trials were systematically reviewed.

CONCLUSION

OVs, which are advancing into clinical trials, are being envisioned as the frontier clinical anti-tumor agents coming soon.

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

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

Oncolytic Virus-Driven Biotherapies from Bench to Bedside

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

A phase 1, first-in-child, multicenter study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the oncolytic herpes virus talimogene laherparepvec in pediatric patients with advanced solid tumors

Background

The survival rates for pediatric patients with relapsed and refractory tumors are poor. Successful treatment strategies are currently lacking and there remains an unmet need for novel therapies for these patients. We report here the results of a phase 1 study of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) and explore the safety of this oncolytic immunotherapy for the treatment of pediatric patients with advanced non-central nervous system tumors.

Methods

T-VEC was delivered by intralesional injection at 10⁶ plaque-forming units (PFU)/ml on the first day, followed by 10⁸ PFU/ml on the first day of week 4 and every 2 weeks thereafter. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and tolerability as assessed by the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Secondary objectives included efficacy indicated by response and survival per modified immune-related response criteria simulating the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (irRC-RECIST).

Results

Fifteen patients were enrolled into two cohorts based on age: cohort A1 (n = 13) 12 to ≤21 years old (soft-tissue sarcoma, n = 7; bone sarcoma, n = 3; neuroblastoma, n = 1; nasopharyngeal carcinoma, n = 1; and melanoma, n = 1) and cohort B1 (n = 2) 2 to <12 years old (melanoma, n = 2). Overall, patients received treatment for a median (range) of 5.1 (0.1, 39.4) weeks. No DLTs were observed during the evaluation period. All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), and 53.3% of patients reported grade ≥3 TEAEs. Overall, 86.7% of patients reported treatment-related TEAEs. No complete or partial responses were observed, and three patients (20%) overall exhibited stable disease as the best response.

Conclusions

T-VEC was tolerable as assessed by the observation of no DLTs. The safety data were consistent with the patients' underlying cancer and the known safety profile of T-VEC from studies in the adult population. No objective responses were observed.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02756845. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02756845.

Oncolytic viral kinetics mechanistic modeling of Talimogene Laherparepvec (T-VEC) a first-in-class oncolytic viral therapy in patients with advanced melanoma

Talimogene Laherparepvec (T-VEC) is a first-in-class oncolytic virotherapy approved for the treatment of unresectable melanoma recurrent after initial surgery. Biodistribution data from a phase II study was used to develop a viral kinetic mechanistic model describing the interaction between cytokines such as granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), the immune system, and T-VEC treatment. Our analysis found that (1) the viral infection rate has a great influence on T-VEC treatment efficacy; (2) an increase in T-VEC dose of 10² plaque-forming units/ml 21 days and beyond after the initial dose of T-VEC resulted in an ~12% increase in response; and (3) at the systemic level, the ratio of resting innate immune cells to the death rate of innate immune impact T-VEC treatment efficacy. This analysis clarifies under which condition the immune system either assists in eliminating tumor cells or inhibits T-VEC treatment efficacy, which is critical to both efficiently design future oncolytic agents and understand cancer development.

Extracellular Vesicles-Based Cell-Cell Communication in Melanoma: New Perspectives in Diagnostics and Therapy

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are a heterogeneous group of cell-secreted particles that carry cargo of functional biomolecules crucial for cell-to-cell communication with both physiological and pathophysiological consequences. In this review, we focus on evidence demonstrating that the EV-mediated crosstalk between melanoma cells within tumor, between melanoma cells and immune and stromal cells, promotes immune evasion and influences all steps of melanoma development from local progression, pre-metastatic niche formation, to metastatic colonization of distant organs. We also discuss the role of EVs in the development of resistance to immunotherapy and therapy with BRAF^V600/MEK inhibitors, and shortly summarize the recent advances on the potential applications of EVs in melanoma diagnostics and therapy.

Case report: Immunovirotherapy as a novel add-on treatment in a patient with thoracic NUT carcinoma

NUT carcinoma (NC) is a rare and extremely aggressive form of cancer, usually presenting with intrathoracic or neck manifestations in adolescents and young adults. With no established standard therapy regimen and a median overall survival of only 6.5 months, there is a huge need for innovative treatment options. As NC is genetically driven by a single aberrant fusion oncoprotein, it is generally characterized by a low tumor mutational burden, thus making it immunologically cold and insusceptible to conventional immunotherapy. Recently, we have demonstrated that oncolytic viruses (OVs) are able to specifically infect and lyse NC cells, thereby turning an immunologically cold tumor microenvironment into a hot one. Here, we report an intensive multimodal treatment approach employing for the first time an OV (talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC); IMLYGIC®) together with the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab as an add-on to a basic NC therapy (cytostatic chemotherapy, radiation therapy, epigenetic therapy) in a patient suffering from a large thoracic NC tumor which exhibits an aberrant, unique BRD3:NUTM1 fusion. This case demonstrates for the first time the feasibility of this innovative add-on immunovirotherapy regimen with a profound, repetitive and durable replication of T-VEC that is instrumental in achieving tumor stabilization and improvement in the patient´s quality of life. Further, a previously unknown BRD3:NUTM1 fusion gene was discovered that lacks the extraterminal domain of BRD3.

Update in Diagnosis and Management of Primary Cutaneous B-Cell Lymphomas

Primary cutaneous lymphomas are a rare group of diseases, with an estimated incidence of 0.5-1 case per 100,000 people per year. Primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas (pCBCLs) represent 25-30% of all primary cutaneous lymphomas. There are three main subtypes of pCBCL: primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma, primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma, and primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type. Cutaneous B-cell lymphomas have a broad spectrum of clinical presentations, which makes diagnostic and therapeutic strategies challenging. To date, treatment recommendations for cutaneous B-cell lymphomas have been largely based on small retrospective studies and institutional experience. Recently, the pharmacotherapeutic landscape has expanded to include drugs that may modify the underlying disease pathology of pCBCLs, representing new therapeutic modalities for this rare group of diseases. Novel therapies used for other systemic B-cell lymphomas show promise for the treatment of pCBCLs and are being increasingly considered. These new therapies are divided into five main groups: monoclonal antibodies, immune checkpoint inhibitors, small-molecule inhibitors, bispecific T-cell engaging, and chimeric antigen receptor T cell. In this review, we discuss the clinical, histopathological, molecular, and cytogenetic features of the most common pCBCL subtypes with a focus on current and innovative therapeutic developments in their management. These emerging treatment strategies for B-cell lymphomas and cutaneous B-cell lymphomas may represent novel first-line options for the management of these rare diseases.

Advances in the clinical development of oncolytic viruses

OBJECTIVES

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) are natural or recombinant viruses that selectively infect and kill cancer cells without harming normal cells. This review aimed to explore some ongoing and completed clinical studies on OVs, in China and worldwide, to depict a comprehensive landscape of OV clinical trials, and summarize the existing evidence on safety and effectiveness of oncolytic therapy against tumors.

METHODS

Used the Center for Drug Evaluation of China National Medical Products Administration (NMPA), Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR), International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov website, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and PubMed.

RESULTS

As of October 1, 2021, 408 clinical trials on 31 OV products have been conducted, with oncolytic DNA viruses being the most investigated ones; phase I and phase II clinical studies accounted for approximately 80% of all studies. Published clinical studies have shown that OVs, such as H101, T-VEC, G47Δ, OH2, T3011, and Pelareorep, have significant anti-tumor effects on various tumors, with only mild adverse events. When OVs are used together with antiviral drugs in the clinic, drug interactions should be considered based on the sensitivity of OVs to antiviral drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

OVs exhibit accurate oncolysis and favorable safety, and have positive effects on a variety of tumor treatments. It is worth noting that most of the OVs under development are still in their early stages, which is both a challenge and a promising prospect.

Beyond Immunotherapy: Seizing the Momentum of Oncolytic Viruses in the Ideal Platform of Skin Cancers

Simple Summary

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) are the most innovative and promising class of intratumoral immunotherapies. The broad immunogenic landscape of skin cancer, accessible to intralesional infusion and available for direct response assessment, seems to be an ideal platform to expand the role of OVs. The established efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in this field and their hypothetical synergy with OVs have generated expectations for their combined use beyond the current immunotherapy achievements. Despite the recent negative phase III results of the MASTERKEY-265 trial for the combination of T-VEC plus pembrolizumab, such projects, including different ICIs and various natural or genetically modified OVs, continue to attract considerable interest, with numerous clinical trials underway for all the subtypes of skin cancer. To date, the majority of studies confirm the safety of tested OVs in patients with advanced skin cancers but cannot clearly prove whether these viral agents add any therapeutic benefit in the standard ICI-based approach. The aim of this overview is to present the main findings related to the examined OV-containing regimens at pre-clinical and clinical levels, and to discuss the previous failures as well as the future perspectives of oncolytic virotherapy.

Abstract

Despite the durable remissions induced by ICIs and targeted therapies in advanced melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers, both subtypes usually relapse. Many systematic therapies have been tested to increase efficacy and delay relapse in ICIs, but their success has been limited. Due the feasibility of this approach, skin cancers have become the ideal platform for intralesional infusions of many novel agents, including oncolytic viruses (OVs). Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) was the first FDA-approved OV for the treatment of unresectable melanoma and this virus opened up further potential for the use of this class of agents, especially in combination with ICIs, in order to achieve deeper and longer immune-mediated responses. However, the recently announced phase III MASTERKEY-265 trial was not able to confirm that the addition of T-VEC to pembrolizumab treatment improves progression-free or overall survival over the use of pembrolizumab alone. Despite these results, numerous studies are currently active, evaluating T-VEC and several other OVs as monotherapies or in regimens with ICIs in different subtypes of skin cancer. This overview provides a comprehensive update on the evolution status of all available OVs in melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers and summarizes the more interesting preclinical findings, the latest clinical evidence, and the future insights in relation to the expected selective incorporation of some of these OVs into oncological practice.

Oncolytic virus delivery modulated immune responses toward cancer therapy: Challenges and perspectives

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) harness the hallmarks of tumor cells and cancer-related immune responses for the lysis of malignant cells, modulation of the tumor microenvironment, and exertion of vaccine-like activities. However, efficient clinical exploitation of these potent therapeutic modules requires their systematic administration, especially against metastatic and solid tumors. Therefore, developing methods for shielding a virus from the neutralizing environment of the bloodstream while departing toward tumor sites is a must. This paper reports the latest advancements in the employment of chemical and biological compounds aimed at safe and efficient delivery of OVs to target tissues or tumor deposits within the host.

Preclinical safety assessment of toxicity and biodistribution of oncolytic virus HSV-1 expressing human PD-1 antibody in mice

HSV-1/hPD-1 is composed of engineered herpes simplex virus type-1 and two inserted copies of the human PD-1 antibody sequence. It is a novel oncolytic virus product designed to cure malignancies. The objective of this study was to estimate its toxicity in mice. In the single-dose toxicity study, no mortality and abnormal symptoms were observed in animals injected with 4.0 × 10⁷ pfu/mouse dose. In the repeat-dose toxicity study, HSV-1/hPD-1 in animals intramuscularly treated with 1.0 × 10⁷, 2.0 × 10⁷, or 4.0 × 10⁷ pfu/mouse doses was well tolerated in terms of clinical observation, body weight, food consumption, hematology and biochemistry indexes, T lymphocyte counting, immune reaction, and organ weight, except for some histopathological changes, such as the irreversible degeneration of the sciatic nerve, which was considered related to the adopted administration route. Synchronously, a biodistribution study in mice was performed to examine whether HSV-1/hPD-1 could spread to the injection site, gonads, liver, lung, heart, mesenteric and inguinal lymph nodes, skin, dorsal root ganglia, and blood, and then be gradually eliminated. Thus, two safety dose levels-the maximum tolerance dose of 4.0 × 10⁷ pfu/mouse and the no-observed-adverse-effect-level dose of 1.0 × 10⁷ pfu/mouse-were determined to help design patients' dose regimens. Our research data have been successfully accepted for investigational new drug (IND) application in China.

OrienX010, an oncolytic virus, in patients with unresectable stage IIIC-IV melanoma: a phase Ib study

BACKGROUND

Melanoma in people of Asian descent presents primarily in non-sun-exposed areas, such as acral and mucosal melanoma. Compared with the predominant sun-exposed area melanomas in Caucasians, acral and mucosal melanomas do not respond as well to immunotherapy and are associated with a worse prognosis. Hence, there is an urgent need for improved treatment for melanoma in Asians. This phase Ib trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of the modified herpes simplex virus-1 oncolytic virus OrienX010 in Chinese patients with unresectable stage IIIC-IV melanoma.

METHODS

Patients were treated in two different cohorts. In cohort 08 (n=12), patients received up to 5 mL of 8×10⁷ pfu/mL OrienX010 intratumoral injections every 2 weeks until disease progression and responses were evaluated every 6 weeks. In cohort 09 (n=14), patients received up to 10 mL of 8×10⁷ pfu/mL OrienX010 intratumoral injections and responses were evaluated every 8 weeks.

RESULTS

Between June 2014 and May 2017, 26 patients were enrolled, including 18 (69.2%) patients with acral melanoma. Fever and injection site reaction were the most frequent adverse events. Only one patient experienced a grade ≥3 adverse event and no dose-limiting toxicities were observed. The objective response rate was 19.2% and the disease control rate was 53.8%. The median duration of response was 6.0 months. Antitumor effects were observed in 54.6% of injected lesions and 48.8% of non-injected lesions, including one (16.7%) of six evaluable distant lung metastases. The median progression-free survival was 2.9 months and overall survival was 19.2 months. Compared with patients treated in cohort 08, patients treated in cohort 09 had an improved objective response rate (28.6% vs 8.3%) and a median progression-free survival of 3.0 months vs 2.8 months.

CONCLUSIONS

OrienX010 oncolytic virotherapy has a tolerable safety profile with antitumor effects in both injected and non-injected metastases and warrants further evaluation in patients with melanoma. Based on these results, the higher cohort 09 dose (up to 10 mL of 8×10⁷ pfu/mL every 2 weeks) was selected as the recommended phase II dose for ongoing trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CTR20140631 (cohort 08), CTR20150881 (cohort 09).

Infection of non-cancer cells: A barrier or support for oncolytic virotherapy?

Oncolytic viruses are designed to specifically target cancer cells, sparing normal cells. Although numerous studies demonstrate the ability of oncolytic viruses to infect a wide range of non-tumor cells, the significance of this phenomenon for cancer virotherapy is poorly understood. To fill the gap, we summarize the data on infection of non-cancer targets by oncolytic viruses with a special focus on tumor microenvironment and secondary lymphoid tissues. The review aims to address two major questions: how do attenuated viruses manage to infect normal cells, and whether it is of importance for oncolytic virotherapy.

Cancer Immunotherapies: What the Perioperative Physician Needs to Know

Purpose of Review

For patients with cancer, treatment may include combination therapy, including surgery and immunotherapy. Here, we review perioperative considerations for the patient prescribed immunotherapeutic agents.

Recent Findings

The perioperative period is a poignant moment in the journey of a patient with cancer, potentially deemed most influential compared to other moments in the care continuum. Several immunotherapeutic medications have been employed near the time of surgery to potentially increase effectiveness. Of the various drug classes, including immune checkpoint inhibitors, cytokines, toll-like receptor agonists, and oncolytic viruses, among others, several notable immune-related adverse effects were noted. They range from minor effects to more serious ones, such as renal failure, myocarditis, and tumor growth.

Summary

Surgery and immunotherapy are often employed in combination for primary treatment and prevention of cancer recurrence. Careful review and consideration of the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and toxicities of immunotherapy benefit the perioperative physician and their patients.

A Review of Cancer Immunotherapy Toxicity II: Adoptive Cellular Therapies, Kinase Inhibitors, Monoclonal Antibodies, and Oncolytic Viruses

Immunotherapy for cancer has undergone a rapid expansion in classes, agents, and indications. By utilizing aspects of the body's innate immune system, immunotherapy has improved life expectancy and quality of life for patients with several types of cancer. Adoptive cellular therapies, including chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T) cell therapy, involve the genetic engineering of patient T cells to allow for targeting of neoplastic cells. Monitoring of patients during the lymphodepletion prior to therapy and following CAR T cell infusion is necessary to detect toxicity of therapy. Specific toxicities include cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicity, both of which may be life-threatening. Tocilizumab and/or corticosteroids should be considered for moderate to severe toxicity. Kinase inhibitor toxicity can occur as "on target" effects or "off target" effects to multiple organ systems due to shared protein epitopes. Treatments are organ-specific. Infusion reactions are common during treatment with monoclonal antibodies and treatment is largely supportive. Clinical experience with oncolytic viruses is limited, but local reactions including cellulitis as well as systemic influenza-like syndromes have been seen but are typically mild. Although clinical experience with adverse effects due to newer immunotherapy agents is growing, an up-to-date understanding of their mechanisms and potential toxicities is critical.

Emerging systemic delivery strategies of oncolytic viruses: A key step toward cancer immunotherapy

Oncolytic virotherapy (OVT) is a novel type of immunotherapy that induces anti-tumor responses through selective self-replication within cancer cells and oncolytic virus (OV)-mediated immunostimulation. Notably, talimogene laherparepvec (T-Vec) developed by the Amgen company in 2015, is the first FDA-approved OV product to be administered via intratumoral injection and has been the most successful OVT treatment. However, the systemic administration of OVs still faces huge challenges, including in vivo pre-existing neutralizing antibodies and poor targeting delivery efficacy. Recently, state-of-the-art progress has been made in the development of systemic delivery of OVs, which demonstrates a promising step toward broadening the scope of cancer immunotherapy and improving the clinical efficacy of OV delivery. Herein, this review describes the general characteristics of OVs, focusing on the action mechanisms of OVs as well as the advantages and disadvantages of OVT. The emerging multiple systemic administration approaches of OVs are summarized in the past five years. In addition, the combination treatments between OVT and traditional therapies (chemotherapy, thermotherapy, immunotherapy, and radiotherapy, etc.) are highlighted. Last but not least, the future prospects and challenges of OVT are also discussed, with the aim of facilitating medical researchers to extensively apply the OVT in the cancer therapy.

Mechanistic Modeling of a Novel Oncolytic Virus, V937, to Describe Viral Kinetic and Dynamic Processes Following Intratumoral and Intravenous Administration

V937 is an investigational novel oncolytic non-genetically modified Kuykendall strain of Coxsackievirus A21 which is in clinical development for the treatment of advanced solid tumor malignancies. V937 infects and lyses tumor cells expressing the intercellular adhesion molecule I (ICAM-I) receptor. We integrated in vitro and in vivo data from six different preclinical studies to build a mechanistic model that allowed a quantitative analysis of the biological processes of V937 viral kinetics and dynamics, viral distribution to tumor, and anti-tumor response elicited by V937 in human xenograft models in immunodeficient mice following intratumoral and intravenous administration. Estimates of viral infection and replication which were calculated from in vitro experiments were successfully used to describe the tumor response in vivo under various experimental conditions. Despite the predicted high clearance rate of V937 in systemic circulation (t_1/2 = 4.3 min), high viral replication was observed in immunodeficient mice which resulted in tumor shrinkage with both intratumoral and intravenous administration. The described framework represents a step towards the quantitative characterization of viral distribution, replication, and oncolytic effect of a novel oncolytic virus following intratumoral and intravenous administrations in the absence of an immune response. This model may further be expanded to integrate the role of the immune system on viral and tumor dynamics to support the clinical development of oncolytic viruses.

Using nanoparticles for in situ vaccination against cancer: mechanisms and immunotherapy benefits

Immunotherapy to treat cancer is now an established clinical approach. Immunotherapy can be applied systemically, as done with checkpoint blockade antibodies, but it can also be injected directly into identified tumors, in a strategy of in situ vaccination (ISV). ISV is designed to stimulate a strong local antitumor immune response involving both innate and adaptive immune cells, and through this generate a systemic antitumor immune response against metastatic tumors. A variety of ISVs have been utilized to generate an immunostimulatory tumor microenvironment (TME). These include attenuated microorganisms, recombinant proteins, small molecules, physical disruptors of TME (alternating magnetic and focused ultrasound heating, photothermal therapy, and radiotherapy), and more recently nanoparticles (NPs). NPs are attractive and unique since they can load multiple drugs or other reagents to influence immune and cancer cell functions in the TME, affording a unique opportunity to stimulate antitumor immunity. Here, we describe the NP-ISV therapeutic mechanisms, review chemically synthesized NPs (i.e., liposomes, polymeric, chitosan-based, inorganic NPs, etc.), biologically derived NPs (virus and bacteria-based NPs), and energy-activated NP-ISVs in the context of their use as local ISV. Data suggests that NP-ISVs can enhance outcomes of immunotherapeutic regimens including those utilizing tumor hyperthermia and checkpoint blockade therapies.

Oncolytic Herpes Simplex Virus-Based Therapies for Cancer

With the increased worldwide burden of cancer, including aggressive and resistant cancers, oncolytic virotherapy has emerged as a viable therapeutic option. Oncolytic herpes simplex virus (oHSV) can be genetically engineered to target cancer cells while sparing normal cells. This leads to the direct killing of cancer cells and the activation of the host immunity to recognize and attack the tumor. Different variants of oHSV have been developed to optimize its antitumor effects. In this review, we discuss the development of oHSV, its antitumor mechanism of action and the clinical trials that have employed oHSV variants to treat different types of tumor.

Is immunotherapy in the future of therapeutic management of sarcomas?

Sarcomas are rare, ubiquitous and heterogeneous tumors usually treated with surgery, chemotherapy, target therapy, and radiotherapy. However, 25-50% of patients experience local relapses and/or distant metastases after chemotherapy with an overall survival about 12-18 months. Recently, immuno-therapy has revolutionized the cancer treatments with initial indications for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and melanoma (immune-checkpoint inhibitors).Here, we provide a narrative review on the topic as well as a critical description of the currently available trials on immunotherapy treatments in patients with sarcoma. Given the promising results obtained with anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (pembrolizumab and nivolumab) and CAR-T cells, we strongly believe that these new immunotherapeutic approaches, along with an innovative characterization of tumor genetics, will provide an exciting opportunity to ameliorate the therapeutic management of sarcomas.

Real-life use of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) in melanoma patients in centers in Austria, Switzerland and Germany

Background

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is a licensed therapy for use in melanoma patients of stage IIIB-IVM1a with injectable, unresectable metastatic lesions in Europe. Approval was based on the Oncovex Pivotal Trial in Melanoma study, which also included patients with distant metastases and demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) of 40.5% and a complete response (CR) rate of 16.6%.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to assess the outcome of melanoma patients treated with T-VEC in a real-life clinical setting.

Methods

Based on data from 10 melanoma centers in Austria, Switzerland and southern Germany, we conducted a retrospective chart review, which included 88 patients (44 male, 44 female) with a median age of 72 years (range 36–95 years) treated with T-VEC during the period from May 2016 to January 2020.

Results

88 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria for analysis. The ORR was 63.7%. 38 patients (43.2%) showed a CR, 18 (20.5%) had a partial response, 8 (9.1%) had stable disease and 24 (27.3%) patients had a progressive disease. The median treatment period was 19 weeks (range: 1–65), an average of 11 doses (range: 1–36) were applied. 39 (45.3%) patients developed adverse events, mostly mild, grade I (64.1%).

Conclusion

This real-life cohort treatment with T-VEC showed a high ORR and a large number of durable CRs.

An Update on the Role of Talimogene Laherparepvec (T-VEC) in the Treatment of Melanoma: Best Practices and Future Directions

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is the first agent approved for cancer in the emerging class of oncolytic viral therapies. While T-VEC was approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma in 2015, clinical utilization has been hampered by rapid changes in the therapeutic landscape of melanoma related to advances in both immune checkpoint blockade and targeted therapy, cumbersome logistics involved in T-VEC administration, biosafety concerns, and a perception that T-VEC has limited impact on uninjected, visceral disease. However, with further survival follow-up from the phase III OPTiM (Oncovex^GM-CSF Pivotal Trial in Melanoma), along with new real-world data and consensus guidelines on safe administration of oncolytic viruses, a roadmap for when and how to use T-VEC has been emerging. In addition, preliminary data have demonstrated improved therapeutic responses to T-VEC in combination with immune checkpoint blockade in patients with melanoma without additive toxicity. This review provides an update on recent data with T-VEC alone and in combination with other agents. The emerging data provide guidance for how to better utilize T-VEC for patients with melanoma and identifies critical areas for clinical investigation to expand the role of T-VEC in combination strategies for the treatment of melanoma and perhaps other cancers.

Herpes Simplex Virus Oncolytic Immunovirotherapy: The Blossoming Branch of Multimodal Therapy

Oncolytic viruses are smart therapeutics against cancer due to their potential to replicate and produce the needed therapeutic dose in the tumor, and to their ability to self-exhaust upon tumor clearance. Oncolytic virotherapy strategies based on the herpes simplex virus are reaching their thirties, and a wide variety of approaches has been envisioned and tested in many different models, and on a range of tumor targets. This huge effort has culminated in the primacy of an oncolytic HSV (oHSV) being the first oncolytic virus to be approved by the FDA and EMA for clinical use, for the treatment of advanced melanoma. The path has just been opened; many more cancer types with poor prognosis await effective and innovative therapies, and oHSVs could provide a promising solution, especially as combination therapies and immunovirotherapies. In this review, we analyze the most recent advances in this field, and try to envision the future ahead of oHSVs.

Clinical landscape of oncolytic virus research in 2020

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) are a new class of cancer therapeutics. This review was undertaken to provide insight into the current landscape of OV clinical trials. A PubMed search identified 119 papers from 2000 to 2020 with 97 studies reporting data on 3233 patients. The viruses used, presence of genetic modifications and/or transgene expression, cancer types targeted, inclusion of combination strategies and safety profile were reported. In addition, information on viral bioshedding across the studies, including which tissues or body fluids were evaluated and how virus was detected (eg, PCR, plaque assay or both), is also reported. Finally, the number of studies evaluating antiviral and antitumor humoral and cellular immune responses were noted. We found that adenovirus (n=30) is the most common OV in clinical trials with approximately two-thirds (n=63) using modified or recombinant viral backbones and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (n=24) was the most common transgene. The most common tumors targeted were melanoma (n=1000) and gastrointestinal (GI; n=577) cancers with most using monotherapy OVs given by intratumoral (n=1482) or intravenous (n=1347) delivery. The most common combination included chemotherapy (n=36). Overall, OV treatment-related adverse events were low-grade constitutional and local injection site reactions. Viral shedding was frequently measured although many studies restricted this to blood and tumor tissue and used PCR only. While most studies did report antiviral antibody titers (n=63), only a minority of studies reported viral-specific T cell responses (n=10). Tumor immunity was reported in 48 studies and largely relied on general measures of immune activation (eg, tumor biopsy immunohistochemistry (n=25) and serum cytokine measurement (n=19)) with few evaluating tumor-specific immune responses (n=7). Objective responses were reported in 292 (9%) patients and disease control was achieved in 681 (21.1%) patients, although standard reporting criteria were only used in 53% of the trials. Completed clinical trials not reported in the peer-reviewed literature were not included in this review potentially underestimating the impact of OV treatment. These data provide insight into the current profile of OV clinical trials reporting and identifies potential gaps where further studies are needed to better define the role of OVs, alone and in combination, for patients with cancer.

Real-world use of talimogene laherparepvec in Germany: a retrospective observational study using a prescription database

Aim: There is a growing body of data on real-world use of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC). We aimed to characterize real-world T-VEC use using a nationally representative German prescription database covering 60% of prescriptions reimbursed. Patients & methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted using the German IMS^® LRx prescription database, analyzing patients aged ≥18 years with an initial T-VEC prescription at 10⁶ plaque-forming units (PFU)/ml and ≥1 subsequent prescription at 10⁸ PFU/ml. Median time on T-VEC treatment, patient characteristics and patterns of T-VEC use were described. Results: Of 127 patients prescribed T-VEC, 72 patients (57%) met study criteria. About two-thirds of these patients initiated T-VEC in 2017. Median age at T-VEC initiation was 74 years (range: 44 to 91). Most prescriptions (88%) were dispensed from hospitals. At study end, 26 (36%) patients remained on T-VEC; 46 (64%) had ended treatment. Median duration of T-VEC treatment for all patients was 18.7 weeks (95% CI: 15.3-26.9) and was longer among those who initiated treatment in 2017 versus 2016 (26.7 vs 15.6 weeks, respectively). Median volume administered for the first 10⁶ PFU/ml and second 10⁸ PFU/ml was 4 ml; the volume decreased for subsequent administrations (2 ml by the eighth administration and 1 ml by the 16th administration). Conclusion: This real-world prescription database study showed that patients who initiated treatment in 2017 had a treatment duration in clinical practice that corresponded with the European Summary of Product Characteristics guideline of continuing T-VEC for ≥6 months. Additional long-term data linking drug use with clinical outcomes are needed.