Pandha, Hardev

Abstract Background: Unnecessary intervention and overtreatment of indolent disease are common challenges in clinical management of prostate cancer. Improved tools to distinguish lethal from indolent disease are critical. Methods: We performed a genome-wide survival analysis of cause-specific death in 24,023 prostate cancer patients (3,513 disease-specific deaths) from the PRACTICAL and BPC3 consortia. Top findings were assessed for replication in a Norwegian cohort (CONOR). Results: We observed no significant association between genetic variants and prostate cancer survival. Conclusions: Common genetic variants with large impact on prostate cancer survival were not observed in this study. Impact: Future studies should be designed for identification of rare variants with large effect sizes or common variants with small effect sizes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(11); 1796–800. ©2015 AACR.

Abstract We have developed the use of reovirus as a systemically delivered oncolytic agent in both pre-clinical models and in early Phase clinical trials. Reovirus has direct oncolytic activity against many human/murine tumor cells, partly because of disruption of the PKR-mediated anti-viral response in malignant cells. In addition however, we have shown that anti-tumor therapy is directly associated with immune activation by virus replication in tumors. The immune mechanisms of therapy include both innate immune activation against virally infected tumor cells, as well as the generation of adaptive anti tumor immune responses as a result of in vivo priming against tumor associated antigens released during that killing. Therefore, to exploit the immune components of reovirus anti-tumor therapy, we hypothesized that the combination of reovirus therapy with systemic checkpoint inhibition would augment therapeutic efficacy. To test the hypothesis, we used C57Bl/6 mice, an immune-competent murine model, with established subcutaneous (s.c.) B16 melanomas. In this model, intra-tumoral injection of reovirus into s.c. tumors generated moderate therapy. Provision of systemic anti-PD-1 antibody along with i.t. reovirus, significantly enhanced survival compared to i.t. reovirus alone (p<0.01) and led to >40% of mice being cured long term. Immune analysis suggested that the enhanced therapeutic benefit of reovirus plus checkpoint inhibition is contributed by at least two factors. First, blockade of PD-1 significantly enhanced the ability of NK cells to recognize (TNF-α secretion), and kill, reovirus-infected target tumor cells. Second, anti PD-1 antibody led to a significant reduction in Treg activity in reovirus-treated mice, with the overall effect of increasing the adaptive CD8+ anti-tumor T cell response. Furthermore, in vivo depletion studies demonstrated that NK cells had a dramatic effect in reducing the therapeutic efficacy of reovirus plus anti-PD-1 therapy. Overall, the results indicate that combination therapy of reovirus with PD-1 blockade confers significant survival benefit, by augmenting tumor-specific NK responses and specifically attenuating tumor-specific immunosuppression. These data also suggest that combination of PD-1 inhibition therapy with reovirus oncolytic/immunotherapy represents a readily translatable method to enhance the therapeutic efficacy. Citation Format: Karishma Rajani, Christopher Parrish, Kevin Shim, Liz Ilett, Fiona Errington-Mais, Jill Thompson, Tim Kottke, Rosa Maria-Diaz, Peter Selby, Hardev Pandha, Kevin Harrington, Alan Melcher, Matt Coffey, Shane Zaidi, Richard Vile. Combination therapy of reovirus and PD-1 blockade effectively establishes tumor control via innate and adaptive immune responses. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2015 Apr 18-22; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(15 Suppl):Abstract nr 1360. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-1360

Abstract Purpose: Reovirus is a wild-type oncolytic virus that is ubiquitous in the environment; most patients are therefore preimmune. Therapeutic administration leads to an increase in neutralizing antireovirus antibody (NARA) titer. We hypothesized that if NARA limited reovirus antitumor activity, the effect might be attenuated by coadministration of cyclophosphamide. Experimental design: In a phase I study, patients with advanced cancer received cyclophosphamide 3 days before intravenous reovirus serotype 3 Dearing (RT3D). The primary objective was to reduce the resulting rise in NARA titer. Cyclophosphamide dose was escalated from 25–1,000 mg/m2 through nine cohorts; we aimed to define a well-tolerated immunomodulatory dose. Results: The combination was well tolerated in 36 patients, with grade 3/4 toxicities only seen at or above the maximum tolerated dose of cyclophosphamide, which was 800 mg/m2 combined with reovirus. Immunosuppressive effect, defined as maintaining NARA titer rise below a predefined threshold, was observed in only one patient. Furthermore, despite expected myelosuppression seen at higher cyclophosphamide doses, no changes in T-cell subsets, including Tregs, occurred with dose escalation. Viable virus was detected in association with peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) from 14% of patients 10 days after the last RT3D injection, despite high plasma NARA titer, demonstrating a potential mechanism for prolonged evasion of neutralization by reovirus. Conclusions: Coadministration of cyclophosphamide with reovirus is safe, but does not attenuate host antiviral responses. Alternative immunomodulation approaches should be explored, but association with PBMCs may allow reovirus to persist and evade even high levels of neutralizing antibodies. Clin Cancer Res; 21(6); 1305–12. ©2014 AACR.

Abstract Oncolytic viruses can exert their antitumor activity via direct oncolysis or activation of antitumor immunity. Although reovirus is currently under clinical investigation for the treatment of localized or disseminated cancer, any potential immune contribution to its efficacy has not been addressed. This is the first study to investigate the ability of reovirus to activate human dendritic cells (DC), key regulators of both innate and adaptive immune responses. Reovirus induced DC maturation and stimulated the production of the proinflammatory cytokines IFN-α, TNF-α, IL-12p70, and IL-6. Activation of DC by reovirus was not dependent on viral replication, while cytokine production (but not phenotypic maturation) was inhibited by blockade of PKR and NF-κB signaling. Upon coculture with autologous NK cells, reovirus-activated DC up-regulated IFN-γ production and increased NK cytolytic activity. Moreover, short-term coculture of reovirus-activated DC with autologous T cells also enhanced T cell cytokine secretion (IL-2 and IFN-γ) and induced non-Ag restricted tumor cell killing. These data demonstrate for the first time that reovirus directly activates human DC and that reovirus-activated DC stimulate innate killing by not only NK cells, but also T cells, suggesting a novel potential role for T cells in oncolytic virus-induced local tumor cell death. Hence reovirus recognition by DC may trigger innate effector mechanisms to complement the virus’s direct cytotoxicity, potentially enhancing the efficacy of reovirus as a therapeutic agent.

Reovirus is an oncolytic virus (OV), which acts by both direct tumor cell killing and priming of antitumor immunity. A major obstacle for effective oncolytic virotherapy is effective delivery of OV to tumor cells. Ovarian cancer is often confined to the peritoneal cavity and therefore i.p. delivery of reovirus may provide the ideal locoregional delivery, avoiding systemic dissemination. However, ovarian cancer is associated with an accumulation of ascitic fluid, which may interfere with oncolytic viral therapy. Here, we investigated the effect of ascites on reovirus‐induced oncolysis against primary ovarian cancer cells and ovarian cancer cell lines. In the absence of ascites, reovirus was cytotoxic against ovarian cancer cells; however, cytotoxicity was abrogated in the presence of ascitic fluid. Neutralizing antibodies (NAb) were identified as the cause of this inhibition. Loading OV onto cell carriers may facilitate virus delivery in the presence of NAb and immune cells which have their own antitumor effector activity are particularly appealing. Immature dendritic cells (iDC), Lymphokine‐activated killer (LAK) cells and LAKDC cocultures were tested as potential carriers for reovirus for tumor cell killing and immune cell priming. Reovirus‐loaded LAKDC, and to a lesser degree iDC, were able to: (i) protect from NAb and hand‐off reovirus for tumor cell killing; (ii) induce a proinflammatory cytokine milieu (IFNɣ, IL‐12, IFNα and TNFα) and (iii) generate an innate and specific antitumor adaptive immune response. Hence, LAKDC pulsed with reovirus represent a novel, clinically practical treatment for ovarian cancer to maximise both direct and innate/adaptive immune‐mediated tumor cell killing.

Oncolytic reovirus is carried by cells to tumors and protected from neutralizing antibodies in the circulation.

Abstract Purpose: Dendritic cells (DC) may be the most effective way of delivering oncolytic viruses to patients. Reovirus, a naturally occurring oncolytic virus, is currently undergoing early clinical trials; however, intravenous delivery of the virus is hampered by pre-existing antiviral immunity. Systemic delivery via cell carriage is a novel approach currently under investigation and initial studies have indicated its feasibility by using a variety of cell types and viruses. This study addressed the efficacy of human DC to transport virus in the presence of human neutralizing serum. Experimental Design: Following reovirus-loading, DC or T cells were cocultured with melanoma cells with or without neutralizing serum; the melanoma cells were then analyzed for cell death. Following reovirus loading, cells were examined by electron microscopy to identify mechanisms of delivery. The phagocytic function of reovirus-loaded DC was investigated by using labeled tumor cells and the ability of reovirus-loaded DC to prime T cells was also investigated. Results: In the presence of human neutralizing serum DC, but not T cells, were able to deliver reovirus for melanoma cell killing in vitro. Electron microscopy suggested that DC protected the virus by internalization, whereas with T cells it remained bound to the surface and hence accessible to neutralizing antibodies. Furthermore, DC loaded with reovirus were fully functional with regard to phagocytosis and priming of specific antitumor immune responses. Conclusions: The delivery of reovirus via DC could be a promising new approach offering the possibility of combining systemic viral therapy for metastatic disease with induction of an antitumor immune response. Clin Cancer Res; 17(9); 2767–76. ©2011 AACR.

Abstract Purpose: REOLYSIN (Oncolytics Biotech) consists of a wild-type oncolytic reovirus, which has selective cytotoxicity for tumor cells while sparing normal cells. In a phase I study as a single agent, repeated infusions of reovirus were safe with evidence of antitumor activity. Preclinical studies indicate potential for synergy between reovirus and chemotherapeutic agents. A multicenter, phase I dose escalation study was designed to assess the safety of combining reovirus with docetaxel chemotherapy in patients with advanced cancer. Experimental Design: Patients received 75 mg/m2 docetaxel (day 1) and escalating doses of reovirus up to 3 × 1010 TCID50 (days 1-5) every 3 weeks. Results: Twenty-five patients were enrolled, and 24 patients were exposed to treatment, with 23 completing at least one cycle and 16 suitable for response assessment. Dose-limiting toxicity of grade 4 neutropenia was seen in one patient, but the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. Antitumor activity was seen with one complete response and three partial responses. A disease control rate (combined complete response, partial response, and stable disease) of 88% was observed. Immunohistochemical analysis of reovirus protein expression was observed in posttreatment tumor biopsies from three patients. Conclusion: The combination of reovirus and docetaxel is safe, with evidence of objective disease response, and warrants further evaluation in a phase II study at a recommended schedule of docetaxel (75 mg/m2, three times weekly) and reovirus (3 × 1010 TCID50, days 1-5, every 3 weeks). Clin Cancer Res; 16(22); 5564–72. ©2010 AACR.

Abstract Purpose: To determine the safety and feasibility of combining intratumoral reovirus and radiotherapy in patients with advanced cancer and to assess viral biodistribution, reoviral replication in tumors, and antiviral immune responses. Experimental Design: Patients with measurable disease amenable to palliative radiotherapy were enrolled. In the first stage, patients received radiotherapy (20 Gy in five fractions) plus two intratumoral injections of RT3D at doses between 1 × 108 and 1 × 1010 TCID50. In the second stage, the radiotherapy dose was increased (36 Gy in 12 fractions) and patients received two, four, or six doses of RT3D at 1 × 1010 TCID50. End points were safety, viral replication, immunogenicity, and antitumoral activity. Results: Twenty-three patients with various solid tumors were treated. Dose-limiting toxicity was not seen. The most common toxicities were grade 2 (or lower) pyrexia, influenza-like symptoms, vomiting, asymptomatic lymphopenia, and neutropenia. There was no exacerbation of the acute radiation reaction. Reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) studies of blood, urine, stool, and sputum were negative for viral shedding. In the low-dose (20 Gy in five fractions) radiation group, two of seven evaluable patients had a partial response and five had stable disease. In the high-dose (36 Gy in 12 fractions) radiation group, five of seven evaluable patients had partial response and two stable disease. Conclusions: The combination of intratumoral RT3D and radiotherapy was well tolerated. The favorable toxicity profile and lack of vector shedding means that this combination should be evaluated in newly diagnosed patients receiving radiotherapy with curative intent. Clin Cancer Res; 16(11); 3067–77. ©2010 AACR.