OPTIM trial: a Phase III trial of an oncolytic herpes virus encoding GM-CSF for unresectable stage III or IV melanoma

Oncolytic Viruses in the Era of Omics, Computational Technologies, and Modeling: Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) are the frontier therapy for refractory cancers, especially in integration with immunomodulation strategies. In cancer immunovirotherapy, the many available "omics" and systems biology technologies generate at a fast pace a challenging huge amount of data, where apparently clashing information mirrors the complexity of individual clinical situations and OV used. In this review, we present and discuss how currently big data analysis, on one hand and, on the other, simulation, modeling, and computational technologies, provide invaluable support to interpret and integrate "omic" information and drive novel synthetic biology and personalized OV engineering approaches for effective immunovirotherapy. Altogether, these tools, possibly aided in the future by artificial intelligence as well, will allow for the blending of the information into OV recombinants able to achieve tumor clearance in a patient-tailored way. Various endeavors to the envisioned "synthesis" of turning OVs into personalized theranostic agents are presented.

Charting a killer course to the solid tumor: strategies to recruit and activate NK cells in the tumor microenvironment

The ability to expand and activate natural Killer (NK) cells ex vivo has dramatically changed the landscape in the development of novel adoptive cell therapies for treating cancer over the last decade. NK cells have become a key player for cancer immunotherapy due to their innate ability to kill malignant cells while not harming healthy cells, allowing their potential use as an "off-the-shelf" product. Furthermore, recent advancements in NK cell genetic engineering methods have enabled the efficient generation of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-expressing NK cells that can exert both CAR-dependent and antigen-independent killing. Clinically, CAR-NK cells have shown promising efficacy and safety for treating CD19-expressing hematologic malignancies. While the number of pre-clinical studies using CAR-NK cells continues to expand, it is evident that solid tumors pose a unique challenge to NK cell-based adoptive cell therapies. Major barriers for efficacy include low NK cell trafficking and infiltration into solid tumor sites, low persistence, and immunosuppression by the harsh solid tumor microenvironment (TME). In this review we discuss the barriers posed by the solid tumor that prevent immune cell trafficking and NK cell effector functions. We then discuss promising strategies to enhance NK cell infiltration into solid tumor sites and activation within the TME. This includes NK cell-intrinsic and -extrinsic mechanisms such as NK cell engineering to resist TME-mediated inhibition and use of tumor-targeted agents such as oncolytic viruses expressing chemoattracting and activating payloads. We then discuss opportunities and challenges for using combination therapies to extend NK cell therapies for the treatment of solid tumors.

Oncolytic Efficacy of a Recombinant Vaccinia Virus Strain Expressing Bacterial Flagellin in Solid Tumor Models

Oncolytic viral therapy is a promising novel approach to cancer treatment. Oncolytic viruses cause tumor regression through direct cytolysis on the one hand and recruiting and activating immune cells on the other. In this study, to enhance the antitumor efficacy of the thymidine kinase-deficient vaccinia virus (VV, Lister strain), recombinant variants encoding bacterial flagellin (subunit B) of Vibrio vulnificus (LIVP-FlaB-RFP), firefly luciferase (LIVP-Fluc-RFP) or red fluorescent protein (LIVP-RFP) were developed. The LIVP-FLuc-RFP strain demonstrated exceptional onco-specificity in tumor-bearing mice, detected by the in vivo imaging system (IVIS). The antitumor efficacy of these variants was explored in syngeneic murine tumor models (B16 melanoma, CT26 colon cancer and 4T1 breast cancer). After intravenous treatment with LIVP-FlaB-RFP or LIVP-RFP, all mice tumor models exhibited tumor regression, with a prolonged survival rate in comparison with the control mice. However, superior oncolytic activity was observed in the B16 melanoma models treated with LIVP-FlaB-RFP. Tumor-infiltrated lymphocytes and the cytokine analysis of the serum and tumor samples from the melanoma-xenografted mice treated with these virus variants demonstrated activation of the host's immune response. Thus, the expression of bacterial flagellin by VV can enhance its oncolytic efficacy against immunosuppressive solid tumors.

Talimogene laherparepvec monotherapy for head and neck melanoma patients

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is a modified herpes simplex virus, type 1, intralesionally administered in patients with stage IIIB/C-IVM1a unresectable melanoma. When surgery is not a treatment option in the head and neck region, T-VEC can be an elegant alternative to systemic immunotherapy. Ten patients with metastatic melanoma in the head and neck region started treatment with T-VEC monotherapy at the Netherlands Cancer Institute. We collected data on response, adverse events (AEs), and baseline characteristics. For response evaluation, we used clinical evaluation with photography, 3-monthly PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) using 18F-fluoro-2-D-deoxyglucose, and histological biopsies. Median age at baseline was 78.2 (35-97) years with a median follow-up of 11.6months. Of these 10 patients, 5 had a complete response (CR), 3 had a partial response, 1 had stable disease and 1 showed progressive disease (PD) as their best response. Best overall response rate (ORR) was 80%. Median progression-free survival was 10.8 months (95% confidence interval, 2.2-19.4). Grade 1 AEs occurred in all patients. Mostly, these consisted of fatigue, influenza-like symptoms, and injection site pain. PET-CT and histological biopsies proved to be clinically useful tools to evaluate treatment response for T-VEC monotherapy, confirming pCR or PD to stage IV disease requiring systemic treatment. ORR for T-VEC monotherapy for melanoma in the head and neck region at our institute was 80% with 50% achieving a CR. This realworld data demonstrates promising results and suggests T-VEC can be an alternative to systemic therapy in this select, mostly elderly patient population.

Tumor Microenvironment Immunosuppression: A Roadblock to CAR T-Cell Advancement in Solid Tumors

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells are an exciting advancement in cancer immunotherapy, with striking success in hematological cancers. However, in solid tumors, the unique immunosuppressive elements of the tumor microenvironment (TME) contribute to the failure of CAR T cells. This review discusses the cell populations, cytokine/chemokine profile, and metabolic immunosuppressive elements of the TME. This immunosuppressive TME causes CAR T-cell exhaustion and influences failure of CAR T cells to successfully infiltrate solid tumors. Recent advances in CAR T-cell development, which seek to overcome aspects of the TME immunosuppression, are also reviewed. Novel discoveries overcoming immunosuppressive limitations of the TME may lead to the success of CAR T cells in solid tumors.

Role of HMGB1 in Cutaneous Melanoma: State of the Art

High-mobility Group Box 1 (HMGB1) is a nuclear protein that plays a key role in acute and chronic inflammation. It has already been studied in several diseases, among them melanoma. Indeed, HMGB1 is closely associated with cell survival and proliferation and may be directly involved in tumor cell metastasis development thanks to its ability to promote cell migration. This research aims to assess the role of this molecule in the pathogenesis of human melanoma and its potential therapeutic role. The research has been conducted on the PubMed database, and the resulting articles are sorted by year of publication, showing an increasing interest in the last five years. The results showed that HMGB1 plays a crucial role in the pathogenesis of skin cancer, prognosis, and therapeutical response to therapy. Traditional therapies target this molecule indirectly, but future perspectives could include the development of new target therapy against HMGB1, thus adding a new approach to the therapy, which has often shown primary and secondary resistance. This could add a new therapy arm which has to be prolonged and specific for each patient.

Re-introduction of T-VEC Monotherapy in Recurrent Melanoma is Effective

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is a modified herpes simplex virus type 1, which can be administered intralesionally in patients with stage IIIB/C-IVM1a (American Joint Committee of Cancer; AJCC 7th edition) unresectable melanoma. In the case of disease recurrence, T-VEC can be re-introduced for the same category of patients. Five patients with recurrent disease after a prior achieved complete response (CR) recommenced treatment with T-VEC monotherapy at the Netherlands Cancer Institute. We collected data on response, adverse events and baseline characteristics. All 5 patients that were re-treated with T-VEC presented with in-transit metastases on the lower limb. Median age at baseline was 72.1 years with a median follow-up time of 30.4 months. Histologically proven CR was achieved after a median of 8 T-VEC courses on the initial exposure. Duration of response (time between first CR and recurrence) varied between 3.8 and 14.2 months. All 5 patients achieved a histologically and/or positron emission tomography/computed tomography proven CR again after re-introduction of T-VEC with a median of 5 courses. One patient (20%) developed a second recurrence and is currently still on treatment with T-VEC. No patients developed distant metastases. Grade 1 adverse events occurred in all patients. Mostly, these consisted of fatigue, influenza-like symptoms and injection site pain. Response to re-introduction of T-VEC monotherapy in this select patient population is promising. This real world data on re-introduction of T-VEC monotherapy in stage IIIB/C-IVM1a melanoma suggests T-VEC could be a treatment option for chronic disease control.

(Im)maturity in Tumor Ecosystem

Tumors have special features that make them distinct from their normal counterparts. Immature cells in a tumor mass and their critical contributions to the tumorigenesis will open new windows toward cancer therapy. Incomplete cellular development brings versatile and unique functionality in the cellular tumor ecosystem, such as what is seen for highly potential embryonic cells. There is evidence that maturation of certain types of cells in this ecosystem can recover the sensitivity of the tumor. Therefore, understanding more about the mechanisms that contributed to this immaturity will render new therapeutic approaches in cancer therapy. Targeting such mechanisms can be exploited as a supplementary to the current immunotherapeutic treatment schedules, such as immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. The key focus of this review is to discuss the impact of (im)maturity in cellular tumor ecosystems on cancer progression, focusing mainly on immaturity in the immune cell compartment of the tumor, as well as on the stemness of tumor cells.

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.

External Validation of a Dutch Predictive Nomogram for Complete Response to T-VEC in an Independent American Patient Cohort

PURPOSE

Talimogene Laherparepvec (T-VEC) is a modified herpes simplex virus type-1 used as intralesional immunotherapy in stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma patients. Recently, Stahlie et al. published a predictive model for complete response (CR) to T-VEC. This study was designed to validate this model externally in an independent, American patient cohort.

METHODS

In total, 71 stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma patients treated with T-VEC at Moffitt Cancer Center were included. A second nomogram was built incorporating the same predictive factors: tumor size (diameter of largest metastasis), type of metastases (cutaneous, subcutaneous and nodal), and number of metastases (cutoff: < 20 and > 20). Predictive accuracy was assessed through calculation of overall performance, discriminative ability, and calibration.

RESULTS

The two cohorts were similar in many clinicopathologic factors and only differing in tumor mutational status and use of systemic therapy prior to T-VEC. In the validation cohort, 37 (52%) patients showed CR, 22 (31%) partial response (PR), 2 (5.6%) stable disease (SD), and 10 (15%) progressive disease (PD). Of those who demonstrated a CR, 16 (43%) recurred. Overall performance was good (0.164), and discriminative power resulted in fair discriminative ability (0.827). The calibration curve showed slight underestimation for predicted probabilities > 0.15 and slight overestimation <0.15.

CONCLUSIONS

The original model as well as the validation model show comparable and good predictive accuracy. The validation model reinforces the conclusion that for the best response to T-VEC, it should be used early on in the course of the disease, when the tumor burden is cutaneous with smaller diameter and fewer of metastases.

Talimogene Laherparepvec (T-VEC) for the Treatment of Advanced Locoregional Melanoma After Failure of Immunotherapy: An International Multi-Institutional Experience

BACKGROUND

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is an oncolytic virus approved for the treatment of unresectable, recurrent melanoma. The role of T-VEC after progression on systemic immunotherapy (IO) remains undefined. The goal of this study was to characterize the efficacy of T-VEC after failure of IO in patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma.

METHODS

An international, multi-institutional review of AJCC version 8 stage IIIB-IV melanoma patients treated with T-VEC after failure of IO was performed at six centers from October 2015-December 2020. Primary outcome was in-field response; secondary outcomes included analyses of in-field and overall progression-free survival (PFS) and in-field and overall disease-free survival (DFS) after a complete response. Subset analysis of T-VEC initiation sequentially after or concurrently with IO was performed.

RESULTS

Of 112 patients, median age at T-VEC initiation was 69 years (range 21-93); 65 (58%) were male. Before T-VEC, 57% patients received one IO regimen, 42% received two or more, with most patients (n = 74, 66%) receiving T-VEC sequential to IO. Most were stage 3C (n = 51, 46%) at T-VEC initiation, 29 (26%) received injections to nodal disease. Over median follow-up of 14 months, in-field response at final T-VEC injection was 37% complete (CR), 14% partial (PR). T-VEC initiation sequentially or concurrently did not significantly affect in-field response (p = 0.26). Median in-field PFS was 15 months (95% confidence interval 4.6-NE). Median overall DFS after CR was 32 months (95% confidence interval 17-NE).

CONCLUSIONS

T-VEC after failure of IO is effective in unresectable, metastatic stage IIIB-IV melanoma. T-VEC initiation sequentially or concurrently did not significantly affect in-field response.

Oncolytic virus therapy in cancer: A current review

In view of the advancement in the understanding about the most diverse types of cancer and consequently a relentless search for a cure and increased survival rates of cancer patients, finding a therapy that is able to combat the mechanism of aggression of this disease is extremely important. Thus, oncolytic viruses (OVs) have demonstrated great benefits in the treatment of cancer because it mediates antitumor effects in several ways. Viruses can be used to infect cancer cells, especially over normal cells, to present tumor-associated antigens, to activate "danger signals" that generate a less immune-tolerant tumor microenvironment, and to serve transduction vehicles for expression of inflammatory and immunomodulatory cytokines. The success of therapies using OVs was initially demonstrated by the use of the genetically modified herpes virus, talimogene laherparepvec, for the treatment of melanoma. At this time, several OVs are being studied as a potential treatment for cancer in clinical trials. However, it is necessary to be aware of the safety and possible adverse effects of this therapy; after all, an effective treatment for cancer should promote regression, attack the tumor, and in the meantime induce minimal systemic repercussions. In this manuscript, we will present a current review of the mechanism of action of OVs, main clinical uses, updates, and future perspectives on this treatment.

Non-Operative Options for Loco-regional Melanoma

Malignant melanoma is the 5th most common cancer and stage IV melanoma accounts for approximately 4% of new melanoma diagnoses in the United States. The prognosis for regionally advanced disease is poor, but there have been numerous recent advances in the medical management of melanoma in-transit metastases. The goal of this paper is to review currently accepted treatment options for in-transit metastases and introduce emerging therapies. Therapies to be discussed include limb perfusion and infusion, immunotherapy, checkpoint inhibitors, and radiation therapy.

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Melanoma

With the universal adoption of immune checkpoint blockade and agents targeting BRAF-mutated melanomas in the metastatic setting, numerous clinical trials have evaluated these agents in the neoadjuvant setting. These smaller trials have shown promising results with high pathologic response rates and acceptable safety. Larger prospective randomized trials are under way to determine if all patients with resectable metastatic disease should be receiving neoadjuvant therapy.

T-VEC for stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma achieves high rates of complete and durable responses and is associated with tumor load: a clinical prediction model

BACKGROUND

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is a genetically modified herpes simplex type 1 virus and known as an effective oncolytic immunotherapy for injectable cutaneous, subcutaneous and nodal melanoma lesions in stage IIIB-IVM1a patients. This study set out to identify prognostic factors for achieving a complete response that can be used to optimize patient selection for T-VEC monotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma, treated with T-VEC at the Netherlands Cancer Institute between 2016-12 and 2020-01 with a follow-up time > 6 months, were included. Data were collected on baseline characteristics, responses and adverse events (AEs). Uni- and multivariable analyses were conducted, and a prediction model was developed to identify prognostic factors associated with CR.

RESULTS

A total of 93 patients were included with a median age of 69 years, median follow-up time was 16.6 months. As best response, 58 patients (62%) had a CR, and the overall response rate was 79%. The durable response rate (objective response lasting > 6 months) was 51%. Grade 1-2 AEs occurred in almost every patient. Tumor size, type of metastases, prior treatment with systemic therapy and stage (8Th AJCC) were independent prognostic factors for achieving CR. The prediction model includes the predictors tumor size, type of metastases and number of lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that intralesional T-VEC monotherapy is able to achieve high complete and durable responses. The prediction model shows that use of T-VEC in patients with less tumor burden is associated with better outcomes, suggesting use earlier in the course of the disease.

Fibroblasts Influence the Efficacy, Resistance, and Future Use of Vaccines and Immunotherapy in Cancer Treatment

Tumors are composed of not only epithelial cells but also many other cell types that contribute to the tumor microenvironment (TME). Within this space, cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) are a prominent cell type, and these cells are connected to an increase in tumor progression as well as alteration of the immune landscape present in and around the tumor. This is accomplished in part by their ability to alter the presence of both innate and adaptive immune cells as well as the release of various chemokines and cytokines, together leading to a more immunosuppressive TME. Furthermore, new research implicates CAFs as players in immunotherapy response in many different tumor types, typically by blunting their efficacy. Fibroblast activation protein (FAP) and transforming growth factor β (TGF-β), two major CAF proteins, are associated with the outcome of different immunotherapies and, additionally, have become new targets themselves for immune-based strategies directed at CAFs. This review will focus on CAFs and how they alter the immune landscape within tumors, how this affects response to current immunotherapy treatments, and how immune-based treatments are currently being harnessed to target the CAF population itself.

Tumour Hypoxia-Mediated Immunosuppression: Mechanisms and Therapeutic Approaches to Improve Cancer Immunotherapy

The magnitude of the host immune response can be regulated by either stimulatory or inhibitory immune checkpoint molecules. Receptor-ligand binding between inhibitory molecules is often exploited by tumours to suppress anti-tumour immune responses. Immune checkpoint inhibitors that block these inhibitory interactions can relieve T-cells from negative regulation, and have yielded remarkable activity in the clinic. Despite this success, clinical data reveal that durable responses are limited to a minority of patients and malignancies, indicating the presence of underlying resistance mechanisms. Accumulating evidence suggests that tumour hypoxia, a pervasive feature of many solid cancers, is a critical phenomenon involved in suppressing the anti-tumour immune response generated by checkpoint inhibitors. In this review, we discuss the mechanisms associated with hypoxia-mediate immunosuppression and focus on modulating tumour hypoxia as an approach to improve immunotherapy responsiveness.

Immunologic aspects of viral therapy for glioblastoma and implications for interactions with immunotherapies

INTRODUCTION

The treatment for glioblastoma (GBM) has remained unchanged for the past decade, with only minimal improvements in patient survival. As a result, novel treatments are needed to combat this devastating disease. Immunotherapies are treatments that stimulate the immune system to attack tumor cells and can be either local or systemically delivered. Viral treatments can lead to direct tumor cell death through their natural lifecycle or through the delivery of a suicide gene, with the potential to generate an anti-tumor immune response, making them interesting candidates for combinatorial treatment with immunotherapy.

METHODS

We review the current literature surrounding the interactions between oncolytic viruses and the immune system as well as the use of oncolytic viruses combined with immunotherapies for the treatment of GBM.

RESULTS

Viral therapies have exhibited preclinical efficacy as single-agents and are being investigated in that manner in clinical trials. Oncolytic viruses have significant interactions with the immune system, although this can also vary depending on the strain of virus. Combinatorial treatments using both oncolytic viruses and immunotherapies have demonstrated promising preclinical findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies combining viral and immunotherapeutic treatment modalities have provided exciting results thus far and hold great promise for patients with GBM. Additional studies assessing the clinical efficacy of these treatments as well as improved preclinical modeling systems, safety mechanisms, and the balance between treatment efficacy and immune-mediated viral clearance should be considered.

SITC cancer immunotherapy resource document: a compass in the land of biomarker discovery

Since the publication of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer's (SITC) original cancer immunotherapy biomarkers resource document, there have been remarkable breakthroughs in cancer immunotherapy, in particular the development and approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors, engineered cellular therapies, and tumor vaccines to unleash antitumor immune activity. The most notable feature of these breakthroughs is the achievement of durable clinical responses in some patients, enabling long-term survival. These durable responses have been noted in tumor types that were not previously considered immunotherapy-sensitive, suggesting that all patients with cancer may have the potential to benefit from immunotherapy. However, a persistent challenge in the field is the fact that only a minority of patients respond to immunotherapy, especially those therapies that rely on endogenous immune activation such as checkpoint inhibitors and vaccination due to the complex and heterogeneous immune escape mechanisms which can develop in each patient. Therefore, the development of robust biomarkers for each immunotherapy strategy, enabling rational patient selection and the design of precise combination therapies, is key for the continued success and improvement of immunotherapy. In this document, we summarize and update established biomarkers, guidelines, and regulatory considerations for clinical immune biomarker development, discuss well-known and novel technologies for biomarker discovery and validation, and provide tools and resources that can be used by the biomarker research community to facilitate the continued development of immuno-oncology and aid in the goal of durable responses in all patients.

Cancer Vaccines: Toward the Next Breakthrough in Cancer Immunotherapy

Until now, three types of well-recognized cancer treatments have been developed, i.e., surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy; these either remove or directly attack the cancer cells. These treatments can cure cancer at earlier stages but are frequently ineffective for treating cancer in the advanced or recurrent stages. Basic and clinical research on the tumor microenvironment, which consists of cancerous, stromal, and immune cells, demonstrates the critical role of antitumor immunity in cancer development and progression. Cancer immunotherapies have been proposed as the fourth cancer treatment. In particular, clinical application of immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies, in various cancer types represents a major breakthrough in cancer therapy. Nevertheless, accumulating data regarding immune checkpoint inhibitors demonstrate that these are not always effective but are instead only effective in limited cancer populations. Indeed, several issues remain to be solved to improve their clinical efficacy; these include low cancer cell antigenicity and poor infiltration and/or accumulation of immune cells in the cancer microenvironment. Therefore, to accelerate the further development of cancer immunotherapies, more studies are necessary. In this review, we will summarize the current status of cancer immunotherapies, especially cancer vaccines, and discuss the potential problems and solutions for the next breakthrough in cancer immunotherapy.

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.

Immune gene therapy of cancer

Cancer gene therapy emerged as a promising treatment modality 3 decades ago. However, the failure of the first gene therapy trials in cancer treatment has decreased its popularity. Likewise, immunotherapy has followed a similar course. While it was a popular and promising treatment with IL-2 and interferon and cancer vaccines in the 1980s, it later lost its popularity. Immunotherapy became one of the main options for cancer treatment with the successful use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in clinics approximately 10 years ago. The success of immunotherapy has increased even more with the introduction of cancer gene therapy methods in this area. With the identification of the oncolytic herpes simplex virus and Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells, immune gene therapy has become an essential modality in cancer treatments such as surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapies.

Retargeted and Multi-cytokine-Armed Herpes Virus Is a Potent Cancer Endovaccine for Local and Systemic Anti-tumor Treatment

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) are novel anti-tumor agents with the ability to selectively infect and kill tumor cells while sparing normal tissue. Beyond tumor cytolysis, OVs are capable of priming an anti-tumor immune response via lysis and cross-presentation of locally expressed endogenous tumor antigens, acting as an “endovaccine.” The effectiveness of OVs, similar to other immunotherapies, can be hampered by an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. In this study, we modified a previously generated oncolytic herpes simplex virus (oHSV) retargeted to the human HER2 (hHER2) tumor molecule and encoding murine interleukin-12 (mIL-12), by insertion of a second immunomodulatory molecule, murine granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (mGM-CSF), to maximize therapeutic efficacy. We assessed the efficacy of this double-armed virus (R-123) compared to singly expressing GM-CSF and IL-12 oHSVs in tumor-bearing mice. While monotherapies were poorly effective, combination with α-PD1 enhanced the anti-tumor response, with the highest efficacy of 100% response rate achieved by the combination of R-123 and α-PD1. Efficacy was T cell-dependent, and the induced immunity was long lasting and able to reject a second contralateral tumor. Importantly, systemic delivery of R-123 combined with α-PD1 was effective in inhibiting the development of tumor metastasis. As such, this approach could have a significant therapeutic impact paving the way for further development of this platform in cancer immunotherapy.

Development of oncolytic virotherapy: from genetic modification to combination therapy

Oncolytic virotherapy (OVT) is a novel form of immunotherapy using natural or genetically modified viruses to selectively replicate in and kill malignant cells. Many genetically modified oncolytic viruses (OVs) with enhanced tumor targeting, antitumor efficacy, and safety have been generated, and some of which have been assessed in clinical trials. Combining OVT with other immunotherapies can remarkably enhance the antitumor efficacy. In this work, we review the use of wild-type viruses in OVT and the strategies for OV genetic modification. We also review and discuss the combinations of OVT with other immunotherapies.

Quantitative Proteome Responses to Oncolytic Reovirus in GM-CSF- and M-CSF-Differentiated Bone Marrow-Derived Cells

The efficacy of oncolytic viruses (OVs), such as reovirus, is dictated by host immune responses, including those mediated by the pro- versus anti-inflammatory macrophages. As such, a detailed understanding of the interaction between reovirus and different macrophage types is critical for therapeutic efficacy. To explore reovirus-macrophage interactions, we performed tandem mass tag (TMT)-based quantitative temporal proteomics on mouse bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs) generated with two cytokines, macrophage colony stimulating factor (M-CSF) and granulocytic-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), representing anti- and proinflammatory macrophages, respectively. We quantified 6863 proteins across five time points in duplicate, comparing M-CSF (M-BMM) and GM-CSF (GM-BMM) in response to OV. We find that GM-BMMs have lower expression of key intrinsic proteins that facilitate an antiviral immune response, express higher levels of reovirus receptor protein JAM-A, and are more susceptible to oncolytic reovirus infection compared to M-BMMs. Interestingly, although M-BMMs are less susceptible to reovirus infection and subsequent cell death, they initiate an antireovirus adaptive T cell immune response comparable to that of GM-BMMs. Taken together, these data describe distinct proteome differences between these two macrophage populations in terms of their ability to mount antiviral immune responses.

Considerations for Clinical Translation of MG1 Maraba Virus

Oncolytic viral immunotherapy based on the MG1 Maraba platform has undergone extensive preclinical evaluation, resulting in the advancement of two programs into clinical trials. MG1 Maraba encoding tumor antigens (tumor associated antigens or viral antigens) are used to boost antitumor immunity, while MG1 Maraba infects tumors, causes oncolysis and transforms the tumor microenvironment. An overview of MG1 Maraba clinical development is outlined here, along with general considerations relating to the design of clinical trials for complex biologic products such as oncolytic viral immunotherapies. These include choice of patient population, optimized treatment regimen, and endpoints which provide early signals of activity and inform the late-stage development path of these agents with novel mechanisms of action.

CAR T Cell Therapy Progress and Challenges for Solid Tumors

The past two decades have marked the beginning of an unprecedented success story for cancer therapy through redirecting antitumor immunity [1]. While the mechanisms that control the initial and ongoing immune responses against tumors remain a strong research focus, the clinical development of technologies that engage the immune system to target and kill cancer cells has become a translational research priority. Early attempts documented in the late 1800s aimed at sparking immunity with cancer vaccines were difficult to interpret but demonstrated an opportunity that more than 100 years later has blossomed into the current field of cancer immunotherapy. Perhaps the most recent and greatest illustration of this is the widespread appreciation that tumors actively shut down antitumor immunity, which has led to the emergence of checkpoint pathway inhibitors that re-invigorate the body's own immune system to target cancer [2, 3]. This class of drugs, with first FDA approvals in 2011, has demonstrated impressive durable clinical responses in several cancer types, including melanoma, lung cancer, Hodgkin's lymphoma, and renal cell carcinoma, with the ongoing investigation in others. The biology and ultimate therapeutic successes of these drugs led to the 2018 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, awarded to Dr. James Allison and Dr. Tasuku Honjo for their contributions to cancer therapy [4]. In parallel to the emerging science that aided in unleashing the body's own antitumor immunity with checkpoint pathway inhibitors, researchers were also identifying ways to re-engineer antitumor immunity through adoptive cellular immunotherapy approaches. Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-based T cell therapy has achieved an early head start in the field, with two recent FDA approvals in 2017 for the treatment of B-cell malignancies [5]. There is an explosion of preclinical and clinical efforts to expand the therapeutic indications for CAR T cell therapies, with a specific focus on improving their clinical utility, particularly for the treatment of solid tumors. In this chapter, we will highlight the recent progress, challenges, and future perspectives surrounding the development of CAR T cell therapies for solid tumors.

The emergence of neoadjuvant therapy in advanced melanoma

The discovery of immunotherapy and targeted therapy has introduced new and effective treatment options for advanced melanoma, providing therapeutic options where none existed before. The natural extension of these novel therapies is to identify their role in the neoadjuvant setting. Neoadjuvant therapy for advanced melanoma is still in its infancy, with a wealth of clinical trials underway. Early results are promising, allowing for management of a disease that previously had few options. We review the current literature and interim results from several ongoing investigations to understand the current state of neoadjuvant treatment options and what is to come. These studies pave the way for further advancements in melanoma therapy.

Neoadjuvant therapy of locally/regionally advanced melanoma

Locally/regionally advanced melanoma confers a major challenge in terms of surgical and medical management. Surgical treatment carries the risks of surgical morbidities and potential complications that could be lasting. In addition, these patients continue to have a high risk of relapse and death despite the use of standard adjuvant therapy. Neoadjuvant therapy has the potential to significantly improve the clinical outcome of these patients, particularly in this era of newer and effective targeted and immunotherapeutic agents. Previous neoadjuvant studies tested chemotherapy with temozolomide where the clinical activity was limited. Biochemotherapy (BCT) was tested in two studies in the neoadjuvant setting and showed high tumor response rates; however, BCT was ultimately abandoned following its failure to demonstrate survival benefits in randomized trials of metastatic disease. Success of immunotherapy and targeted therapy in prolonging the lives of patients with metastatic melanoma generated considerable interest to investigate these novel strategies in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings. A number of neoadjuvant targeted and immunotherapy studies have been completed in melanoma to date and have yielded promising clinical activity. Given these encouraging results, a number of studies with other molecularly targeted and immunotherapeutic agents and their combinations are ongoing in the neoadjuvant setting; long-term outcome data are eagerly awaited. Such studies also provide access to biospecimens before and during therapy, allowing for the conduct of biomarker and mechanistic studies that may have a significant impact in guiding adjuvant therapy choices and drug development.

Melanoma vaccines: clinical status and immune endpoints

It has been known for decades that the immune system can be spontaneously activated against melanoma. The presence of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in tumor deposits is a positive prognostic factor. Cancer vaccination includes approaches to generate, amplify, or skew antitumor immunity. To accomplish this goal, tested approaches involve administration of tumor antigens, antigen presenting cells or other immune modulators, or direct modulation of the tumor. Because the success of checkpoint blockade can depend in part on an existing antitumor response, cancer vaccination may play an important role in future combination therapies. In this review, we discuss a variety of melanoma vaccine approaches and methods to determine the biological impact of vaccination.

Potentiating Oncolytic Virus-Induced Immune-Mediated Tumor Cell Killing Using Histone Deacetylase Inhibition

A clinical oncolytic herpes simplex virus (HSV) encoding granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), talimogene laherparepvec, causes regression of injected and non-injected melanoma lesions in patients and is now licensed for clinical use in advanced melanoma. To date, limited data are available regarding the mechanisms of human anti-tumor immune priming, an improved understanding of which could inform the development of future combination strategies with improved efficacy. This study addressed direct oncolysis and innate and adaptive human immune-mediated effects of a closely related HSV encoding GM-CSF (HSVGM-CSF) alone and in combination with histone deacetylase inhibition. We found that HSVGM-CSF supported activation of anti-melanoma immunity via monocyte-mediated type I interferon production, which activates NK cells, and viral maturation of immature dendritic cells (iDCs) into potent antigen-presenting cells for cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) priming. Addition of the histone deacetylase inhibitor valproic acid (VPA) to HSVGM-CSF treatment of tumor cells increased viral replication, viral GM-CSF production, and oncolysis and augmented the development of anti-tumor immunity. Mechanistically, VPA increased expression of activating ligands for NK cell recognition and induced expression of tumor-associated antigens, supporting innate NK cell killing and CTL priming. These data support the clinical combination of talimogene laherparepvec with histone deacetylase inhibition to enhance oncolysis and anti-tumor immunity.

Current and emerging systemic therapies for cutaneous metastatic melanoma

INTRODUCTION

Melanoma therapies have evolved rapidly, and initial successes have translated into survival gains for patients with advanced melanoma. Both targeted and immune-therapy now have evidence in earlier stage disease. There are many new agents and combinations of treatments in development as potential future treatment options. This highlights the need for a reflection on current treatment practice trends that are guiding the development of potential new therapies.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the authors discuss the evidence for currently approved therapies for cutaneous melanoma, including adjuvant therapy, potential new biomarkers, and emerging treatments with early phase clinical trial data. The authors have searched both the PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov databases for published clinical trials and discuss selected landmark trials of current therapies and of investigational treatment strategies with early evidence for the treatment of melanoma.

EXPERT OPINION

Significant efficacy has been demonstrated with both immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies in treating advanced melanoma. A multitude of novel therapies are in development and there is need for instructive biomarker assessment to identify patients likely to respond or be refractory to current therapies, to identify mechanisms of resistance and to direct further treatment options to patients based on individual disease biology.

Viral oncolytic immunotherapy in the war on cancer: Infection control considerations

Oncolytic viral immunotherapy is an emerging treatment modality for cancer that exploits in vivo replication and other viral properties to enhance immune killing of malignant cells. The potential for horizontal transmission of native or engineered oncolytic viruses creates several unique infection control challenges. In 2015, talimogene laherparepvec (TVEC) became the first agent in this class to gain FDA approval for treatment of melanoma, and several others are being developed. Although some data on the transmissibility of TVEC are available from clinical studies, the aftermarket or real-world experience remains limited. We conducted a PUBMED-based search of the medical literature focusing on the safety and risk of TVEC transmission to close contacts including healthcare workers. The findings are summarized in this review and are intended to provide infection preventionists with practical guidance on handling issues related to administration and care of patients receiving TVEC. Additionally, we describe the current mechanism for evaluating the risk related to similar new agents entering clinical trials at our institution. Development of standarized approaches for the safe administration and precautions for ongoing care, especially in immunocompromised patients, are essential to support the broad adoption of this novel therapy.

Suppression of HMGB1 Released in the Glioblastoma Tumor Microenvironment Reduces Tumoral Edema

HMGB1 is a ubiquitously expressed intracellular protein that binds DNA and transcription factors and regulates chromosomal structure and function. Under conditions of cell death or stress, it is actively or passively released by cells into the extracellular environment, where it functions as damage-associated molecular pattern (DAMP) that orchestrates pro-inflammatory cytokine release and inflammation. Our results demonstrate that HMGB1 is secreted in the tumor microenvironment after oncolytic HSV (oHSV) infection in vitro and in vivo. The impact of secreted HMGB1 on tumor growth and response to oncolytic viral therapy was evaluated by using HMGB1-blocking antibodies in vitro and in mice bearing intracranial tumors. IVIS and MRI imaging was utilized to visualize in real time virus spread, tumor growth, and changes in edema in mice. Our data showed that HMGB1 released in tumor microenvironment orchestrated increased vascular leakiness and edema. Further HMGB1 blocking antibodies rescued vascular leakiness and enhanced survival of intracranial glioma-bearing mice treated with oHSV.

Engineered oncolytic viruses to treat melanoma: where are we now and what comes next?

INTRODUCTION

Melanoma treatments have evolved rapidly in the past decade and have included the use of intratumoral injections of engineered oncolytic viruses. One such oncolytic virus is talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), which is the first approved therapy of its kind for use in recurrent, unresectable stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma. Additional oncolytic viruses and their uses in combination with other interventions are currently under investigation.

AREAS COVERED

Oncolytic viruses are being evaluated as immunotherapies for a variety of advanced malignancies. In this article, we review T-VEC, the only FDA-approved engineered oncolytic virus, in addition to ongoing research regarding other oncolytic viruses for the treatment of advanced melanomas. Finally, we discuss opportunities to improve these therapies through viral, host, and tumor-related modifications.

EXPERT OPINION

Engineered and naturally oncolytic viruses have demonstrable local and systemic efficacy as immunotherapies in cancer. T-VEC leads the way with improved survival outcomes for unresectable, stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma as a monotherapy, and is demonstrating superior results in combination with systemic checkpoint inhibitors. Additional viral vectors show acceptable safety profiles and varying degrees of efficacy in targeting melanoma. The indications for use of oncolytic viruses will expand as their efficacy and appropriate usage is better understood in coming years.

Inhibition of constructed SEC3-ES lentiviral vector to proliferation, migration of Hela cells

AIM

To construct a lentiviral vector with endostatin (ES) and staphylococcal enterotoxin C₃(SEC3) gene, and investigate its capacities of inhibition on proliferation and migration of Hela cells.

METHODS

By inserting ES and SEC3 gene into the plasmid and then transfect 293 T cell, the co-expressed (SEC3-ES) vector were constructed. A series of experiments in vitro were carried out to detect its anti-tumor capacity.

RESULTS

SEC3 expression of the vector is about 3 times of GV365-SEC3 vector, and ES expression is over 22.5-fold compared with GV365-ES vector. Moreover, OD490 value of CO group (1.212 ± 0.003) was notably lower than NC (negative control) group (1.124 ± 0.01) (P < 0.05) in MTT assay. Cell cycle analysis showed it could block Hela cells in S phase. Meanwhile, in wound healing assay, cells of CO group migrated at a slower rate (0.59 ± 0.02) compared with NC group (0.65 ± 0.02)(P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The successful construction of co-expressed vector lays the foundation for further studies in vivo. These promising results suggest a new strategy to treating cervical cancer.

An oncolytic herpesvirus expressing E-cadherin improves survival in mouse models of glioblastoma

The efficacy of oncolytic herpes simplex virus (oHSV) is limited by rapid viral clearance by innate immune effector cells and poor intratumoral viral spread. We combine two approaches to overcome these barriers: inhibition of natural killer (NK) cells and enhancement of intratumoral viral spread. We engineered an oHSV to express CDH1, encoding E-cadherin, an adherent molecule and a ligand for KLRG1, an inhibitory receptor expressed on NK cells. In vitro, infection with this engineered virus, named OV-CDH1, induced high surface E-cadherin expression on infected glioblastoma (GBM) cells, which typically lack endogenous E-cadherin. Ectopically expressed E-cadherin enhanced the spread of OV-CDH1 by facilitating cell-to-cell infection and viral entry and reduced viral clearance by selectively protecting OV-CDH1-infected cells from KLRG1+ NK cell killing. In vivo, OV-CDH1 treatment substantially prolonged the survival in GBM-bearing mouse models, primarily because of improved viral spread rather than inhibition of NK cell activity. Thus, virus-induced overexpression of E-cadherin may be a generalizable strategy for improving cancer virotherapy.

Oncolytic Adenovirus rAd.DCN Inhibits Breast Tumor Growth and Lung Metastasis in an Immune-Competent Orthotopic Xenograft Model

The majority of advanced breast cancer patients develop distal metastasis, including lung and bone metastasis. However, effective therapeutic strategies to prevent metastasis are still lacking. Decorin is a natural inhibitor of transforming growth factor β, which plays a pivotal role in tumor metastasis. An oncolytic adenovirus expressing decorin, rAd.DCN, has been developed previously. In an immune-competent breast tumor (4T1) model, intratumoral (i.t.) as well as intravenous (i.v.) delivery of rAd.DCN inhibited growth of orthotopic tumors and spontaneous lung metastasis. It was shown that i.t. delivery of rAd.DCN produced higher levels of transgene expression and evoked stronger oncolysis of the tumors compared to i.v. delivery. However, i.v. delivery resulted in higher amount of virus accumulation in the lungs and produced stronger responses to prevent tumor lung metastasis. Oncolytic adenovirus-mediated decorin expression in the tumors downregulated the decorin target genes and decreased epithelial mesenchymal transition markers. Decorin expression in lung tissues also increased Th1 cytokine expression, such as interleukin (IL)-2, IL-12, and tumor necrosis factor α, and decreased Th2 cytokines, such as transforming growth factor β and IL-6. Moreover, rAd.DCN treatment induced strong systemic inflammatory responses and upregulated CD8⁺ T lymphocytes. In conclusion, rAd.DCN inhibits tumor growth and lung metastasis of breast cancer via regulating wnt/β-catenin, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and Met pathways, and modulating the antitumor inflammatory and immune responses. Considering that i.v. delivery was much more effective in preventing lung metastasis, systemic delivery of rAd.DCN might be a promising strategy to treat breast cancer lung metastasis.

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

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

A fully-virulent retargeted oncolytic HSV armed with IL-12 elicits local immunity and vaccine therapy towards distant tumors

Oncolytic herpes simplex viruses (oHSVs) showed efficacy in clinical trials and practice. Most of them gain cancer-specificity from deletions/mutations in genes that counteract the host response, and grow selectively in cancer cells defective in anti-viral response. Because of the deletions/mutations, they are frequently attenuated or over-attenuated. We developed next-generation oHSVs, which carry no deletion/mutation, gain cancer-specificity from specific retargeting to tumor cell receptors-e.g. HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2)-hence are fully-virulent in the targeted cancer cells. The type of immunotherapy they elicit was not predictable, since non-attenuated HSVs induce and then dampen the innate response, whereas deleted/attenuated viruses fail to contrast it, and since the retargeted oHSVs replicate efficiently in tumor cells, but spare other cells in the tumor. We report on the first efficacy study of HER2-retargeted, fully-virulent oHSVs in immunocompetent mice. Their safety profile was very high. Both the unarmed R-LM113 and the IL-12-armed R-115 inhibited the growth of the primary HER2-Lewis lung carcinoma-1 (HER2-LLC1) tumor, R-115 being constantly more efficacious. All the mice that did not die because of the primary treated tumors, were protected from the growth of contralateral untreated tumors. The long-term survivors were protected from a second contralateral tumor, providing additional evidence for an abscopal immunotherapeutic effect. Analysis of the local response highlighted that particularly R-115 unleashed the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, i.e. induced immunomodulatory cytokines, including IFNγ, T-bet which promoted Th1 polarization. Some of the tumor infiltrating cells, e.g. CD4+, CD335+ cells were increased in the tumors of all responders mice, irrespective of which virus was employed, whereas CD8+, Foxp3+, CD141+ were increased and CD11b+ cells were decreased preferentially in R-115-treated mice. The durable response included a breakage of tolerance towards both HER2 and the wt tumor cells, and underscored a systemic immunotherapeutic vaccine response.

HSV as A Platform for the Generation of Retargeted, Armed, and Reporter-Expressing Oncolytic Viruses

Previously, we engineered oncolytic herpes simplex viruses (o-HSVs) retargeted to the HER2 (epidermal growth factor receptor 2) tumor cell specific receptor by the insertion of a single chain antibody (scFv) to HER2 in gD, gH, or gB. Here, the insertion of scFvs to three additional cancer targets—EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor), EGFRvIII, and PSMA (prostate specific membrane antigen)—in gD Δ6–38 enabled the generation of specifically retargeted o-HSVs. Viable recombinants resulted from the insertion of an scFv in place of aa 6–38, but not in place of aa 61–218. Hence, only the gD N-terminus accepted all tested scFv inserts. Additionally, the insertion of mIL12 in the US1-US2 intergenic region of the HER2- or EGFRvIII-retargeted o-HSVs, and the further insertion of Gaussia Luciferase, gave rise to viable recombinants capable of secreting the cytokine and the reporter. Lastly, we engineered two known mutations in gB; they increased the ability of an HER2-retargeted recombinant to spread among murine cells. Altogether, current data show that the o-HSV carrying the aa 6–38 deletion in gD serves as a platform for the specific retargeting of o-HSV tropism to a number of human cancer targets, and the retargeted o-HSVs serve as simultaneous vectors for two molecules.

Current Strategies to Enhance Anti-Tumour Immunity

The interaction of the immune system with cancer is complex, but new approaches are resulting in exciting therapeutic benefits. In order to enhance the immune response to cancer, immune therapies seek to either induce high avidity immune responses to tumour specific antigens or to convert the tumour to a more pro-inflammatory microenvironment. Strategies, including vaccination, oncolytic viruses, and adoptive cell transfer all seek to induce anti-tumour immunity. To overcome the suppressive tumour microenvironment checkpoint inhibitors and modulators of regulatory cell populations have been investigated. This review summarizes the recent advances in immune therapies and discusses the importance of combination therapies in the treatment of cancers.

Pharmacokinetic drug evaluation of talimogene laherparepvec for the treatment of advanced melanoma

INTRODUCTION

Current treatment of advanced melanoma is rapidly changing with the introduction of new and effective therapies including systemic as well as locoregional therapies. An example of one such locoregional therapy is intralesional injection with talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC). Areas covered: T-VEC has been shown in a number of studies to be an effective treatment for patients with stage IIIB, IIIC and IVM1a melanoma. In this article the effectiveness, pharmacokinetics and safety profile of T-VEC is reviewed. Additionally, new research looking at combinations of T-VEC and systemic immunotherapies is reviewed. Expert opinion: Overall, T-VEC is an easily administered, safe, well tolerated and effective oncolytic viral therapy for the treatment of stage IIIB, IIIC, IVM1a unresectable and injectable metastatic melanoma. Recently published studies are showing promising results when T-VEC is combined with systemic therapy and this may be the way of the not too distant future in how we treat metastatic melanoma. Continued work regarding the use of T-VEC with other systemic agents will provide new and more effective treatment strategies for advanced melanoma.

Targeting the microenvironment in solid tumors

Tumorigenesis is a complex and dynamic process involving different cellular and non-cellular elements composed of tumor microenvironment (TME). The interaction of TME with cancer cells is responsible for tumor development, progression and drug resistance. TME consists of non malignant cells of the tumor such as cancer associated fibroblasts (CAFs), endothelial cells and pericytes composing tumor vasculature, immune and inflammatory cells, bone marrow derived cells, and the extracellular matrix (ECM) establishing a complex cross-talk with tumor. These interactions contribute towards proliferation and invasion of the tumor by producing growth factors, chemokines and matrix-degrading enzymes. ECM is a complex system containing macromolecules with distinctive physical, biochemical and biomechanical properties. During tumorigenesis this system is deregulated favoring the generation of tumorigenic microenvironment enhancing tumor-associated angiogenesis and inflammation. An important step of anticancer treatment is the identification of the biological alterations present in TME in order to target these key molecular players. Multitargeted approaches, providing a simultaneous inhibition of TME components, may offer a more efficient way to treat cancer. In this manuscript we overview the function of each components of TME and the treatments targeting the key players.

Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of people with metastatic cutaneous melanoma, a skin cancer, is generally poor. Recently, new classes of drugs (e.g. immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs) have significantly improved patient prognosis, which has drastically changed the landscape of melanoma therapeutic management. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2000.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to October 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and the ASCO database in February 2017, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered RCTs of systemic therapies for people with unresectable lymph node metastasis and distant metastatic cutaneous melanoma compared to any other treatment. We checked the reference lists of selected articles to identify further references to relevant trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data, and a third review author independently verified extracted data. We implemented a network meta-analysis approach to make indirect comparisons and rank treatments according to their effectiveness (as measured by the impact on survival) and harm (as measured by occurrence of high-grade toxicity). The same two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies according to Cochrane standards and assessed evidence quality based on the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 122 RCTs (28,561 participants). Of these, 83 RCTs, encompassing 21 different comparisons, were included in meta-analyses. Included participants were men and women with a mean age of 57.5 years who were recruited from hospital settings. Twenty-nine studies included people whose cancer had spread to their brains. Interventions were categorised into five groups: conventional chemotherapy (including single agent and polychemotherapy), biochemotherapy (combining chemotherapy with cytokines such as interleukin-2 and interferon-alpha), immune checkpoint inhibitors (such as anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies), small-molecule targeted drugs used for melanomas with specific gene changes (such as BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors), and other agents (such as anti-angiogenic drugs). Most interventions were compared with chemotherapy. In many cases, trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies producing the tested drug: this was especially true for new classes of drugs, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs.When compared to single agent chemotherapy, the combination of multiple chemotherapeutic agents (polychemotherapy) did not translate into significantly better survival (overall survival: HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16, 6 studies, 594 participants; high-quality evidence; progression-free survival: HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25, 5 studies, 398 participants; high-quality evidence. Those who received combined treatment are probably burdened by higher toxicity rates (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.71, 3 studies, 390 participants; moderate-quality evidence). (We defined toxicity as the occurrence of grade 3 (G3) or higher adverse events according to the World Health Organization scale.)Compared to chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) improved progression-free survival (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99, 6 studies, 964 participants; high-quality evidence), but did not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.06, 7 studies, 1317 participants; high-quality evidence). Biochemotherapy had higher toxicity rates (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.61, 2 studies, 631 participants; high-quality evidence).With regard to immune checkpoint inhibitors, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies plus chemotherapy probably increased the chance of progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92, 1 study, 502 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.01, 2 studies, 1157 participants; low-quality evidence). Compared to chemotherapy alone, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies is likely to be associated with higher toxicity rates (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.42, 2 studies, 1142 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies (immune checkpoint inhibitors) improved overall survival (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.48, 1 study, 418 participants; high-quality evidence) and probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.61, 2 studies, 957 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may also result in less toxicity than chemotherapy (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97, 3 studies, 1360 participants; low-quality evidence).Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.66, 1 study, 764 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.60, 2 studies, 1465 participants; high-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may result in better toxicity outcomes than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.91, 2 studies, 1465 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone, the combination of anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies was associated with better progression-free survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.46, 2 studies, 738 participants; high-quality evidence). There may be no significant difference in toxicity outcomes (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.92, 2 studies, 764 participants; low-quality evidence) (no data for overall survival were available).The class of small-molecule targeted drugs, BRAF inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma), performed better than chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.57, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.34, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence), and there may be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.33, 2 studies, 408 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, MEK inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma) may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.25, 3 studies, 496 participants; low-quality evidence), but they probably lead to better progression-free survival (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.80, 3 studies, 496 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, MEK inhibitors probably have higher toxicity rates (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.41, 1 study, 91 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to BRAF inhibitors, the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.82, 4 studies, 1784 participants; high-quality evidence). BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was also probably better in terms of progression-free survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.71, 4 studies, 1784 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and there appears likely to be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20, 4 studies, 1774 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, the combination of chemotherapy plus anti-angiogenic drugs was probably associated with better overall survival (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81; moderate-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; moderate-quality evidence). There may be no difference in terms of toxicity (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.32; low-quality evidence). All results for this comparison were based on 324 participants from 2 studies.Network meta-analysis focused on chemotherapy as the common comparator and currently approved treatments for which high- to moderate-quality evidence of efficacy (as represented by treatment effect on progression-free survival) was available (based on the above results) for: biochemotherapy (with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2); anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies; anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; BRAF inhibitors; MEK inhibitors, and BRAF plus MEK inhibitors. Analysis (which included 19 RCTs and 7632 participants) generated 21 indirect comparisons.The best evidence (moderate-quality evidence) for progression-free survival was found for the following indirect comparisons:• both combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.51) and small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.26) probably improved progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy;• both BRAF inhibitors (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.68) and combinations of small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.39) were probably associated with better progression-free survival compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies;• biochemotherapy (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.76 to 4.51) probably lead to worse progression-free survival compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies;• both biochemotherapy (HR 5.05, 95% CI 3.01 to 8.45) and MEK inhibitors (HR 3.16, 95% CI 1.77 to 5.65) were probably associated with worse progression-free survival compared to the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with worse progression-free survival (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.11) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.The best evidence (moderate-quality evidence) for toxicity was found for the following indirect comparisons:• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (RR 3.49, 95% CI 2.12 to 5.77) probably increased toxicity compared to chemotherapy;• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.20 to 5.20) compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 3.83, 95% CI 2.59 to 5.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with lower toxicity (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.71) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.Network meta-analysis-based ranking suggested that the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors is the most effective strategy in terms of progression-free survival, whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies are associated with the lowest toxicity.Overall, the risk of bias of the included trials can be considered as limited. When considering the 122 trials included in this review and the seven types of bias we assessed, we performed 854 evaluations only seven of which (< 1%) assigned high risk to six trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-quality evidence that many treatments offer better efficacy than chemotherapy, especially recently implemented treatments, such as small-molecule targeted drugs, which are used to treat melanoma with specific gene mutations. Compared with chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (in this case, chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) and BRAF inhibitors improved progression-free survival; BRAF inhibitors (for BRAF-mutated melanoma) and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies improved overall survival. However, there was no difference between polychemotherapy and monochemotherapy in terms of achieving progression-free survival and overall survival. Biochemotherapy did not significantly improve overall survival and has higher toxicity rates compared with chemotherapy.There was some evidence that combined treatments worked better than single treatments: anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies, alone or with anti-CTLA4, improved progression-free survival compared with anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone. Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival, and a combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival for BRAF-mutated melanoma, compared to BRAF inhibitors alone.The combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors (which can only be administered to people with BRAF-mutated melanoma) appeared to be the most effective treatment (based on results for progression-free survival), whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies appeared to be the least toxic, and most acceptable, treatment.Evidence quality was reduced due to imprecision, between-study heterogeneity, and substandard reporting of trials. Future research should ensure that those diminishing influences are addressed. Clinical areas of future investigation should include the longer-term effect of new therapeutic agents (i.e. immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies) on overall survival, as well as the combination of drugs used in melanoma treatment; research should also investigate the potential influence of biomarkers.