Roulstone, Victoria

Abstract Most oncolytic viruses are delivered by intratumoural injection, and local administration can induce regression of both injected and distant tumours in mice and patients. However, the mechanisms by which local viral infection reprograms systemic immunity remain poorly understood. Here we show that intratumoural RP1, an oncolytic HSV-1 encoding GM-CSF and GALV-GP-R ⁻ , drives regression of injected and uninjected murine melanoma tumours and prolongs survival. RP1 elicits coordinated CD4 ⁺ and CD8 ⁺ T cell infiltration accompanied by local cytokine remodelling, reshaping the immune landscape at both tumour sites. Leveraging the Timer of Cell Kinetics and Activity (Tocky) system and Kaede photoconvertible protein technology, we resolve the temporal dynamics of CD8 ⁺ T cell responses following local virotherapy and identify two systemically induced, virus-driven CD8 ⁺ T cell populations distinguished by TCR engagement kinetics: antigen-engaged Timer-positive ‘viral-induced precursors’ (VIPs) and Timer-negative KLRG1 ⁺ ‘viral-induced terminal effectors’ (VITEs). Single-cell transcriptomic and pseudotime analyses reveal divergent differentiation trajectories; VIPs exhibit sustained antigen engagement within the tumour microenvironment (TME), a transcriptional programme associated with self-renewal, and preferential homing to draining lymph nodes. A VIP-associated gene signature correlates with clinical response to RP1 plus PD-1 blockade in the IGNYTE trial of RP1 and nivolumab in PD-1-refractory melanoma and is independently associated with response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in melanoma. These findings establish a mechanistic link between local oncolytic virotherapy, systemic CD8 ⁺ T cell reprogramming, and durable regression of distant lesions in patients.

Background Antitumor immune responses induced by oncolytic immunotherapy (OI) are often followed by upregulation of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). As such, the combination of OI with blockade of the programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 axis has demonstrated therapeutic activity in preclinical and clinical trials. The purpose of this study is to understand further the immune-mediated mechanism of interaction between oncolytic viruses and anti-PD-1 therapy. Methods Tumor cells and immune cells (splenocytes) were cultured separately, or in co-culture with vusolimogene oderparepvec, an oncolytic herpes simplex virus expressing the fusogenic gibbon-ape leukemia virus-fusogenic membrane glycoprotein protein (GALV) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), also known as RP1. Viral replication, interferon (IFN) responses and PD-L1 expression were analyzed using wild-type, IFNAR1, TNFAR1 and STING knockout splenocytes. In vivo studies evaluated immune cell infiltrates into the tumor following RP1 administration with anti-PD-1 therapy. Results RP1 replication was evident in tumor cells but not splenocytes. This was also accompanied by upregulated IFN expression in cultured splenocytes that was absent in cultured tumor cells. However, when these cell types were co-cultured, splenocytes mediated an interferon response to RP1 via STING that was transmitted to tumor cells in a non-touch-dependent manner. Tumor cells responded to these input signals via upregulation of cell surface major histocompatibility complex-I and PD-L1 through tumor intrinsic JAK-STAT signaling. In vivo, an IFN signature was observed following intratumoral injection of RP1, both in injected and non-injected tumors, which was further increased when combined with anti-PD-1 therapy. Marked upregulation of PD-L1 was observed in tumors injected with RP1 accompanied by the recruitment of CD11b+Ly6G+neutrophils into the tumor microenvironment, which stained positive for PD-L1. Conclusion Overall, the data demonstrate that RP1 remodels the tumor microenvironment through a combination of direct and indirect effects on both tumor and immune cells, resulting in an overall more inflamed phenotype.

Background Combination herpes simplex virus (HSV) oncolytic virotherapy and BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) represent promising immunogenic treatments for BRAF mutant melanoma, but an improved understanding of the immunobiology of combinations is needed to improve on the benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Methods Using a BRAFV600E-driven murine melanoma model, we tested the immunogenicity of HSV/BRAFi in immunocompetent C57BL mice. In addition to standard FACS analysis, we used the ‘Timer of Cell Kinetics and Activity’ system, which can analyze the temporal dynamics of different T cell subsets. This immune data was used to inform the selection of ICI for triple combination therapy, the effects of which were then further characterized using transcriptomics. Results Adding BRAFi treatment to HSV improved anti-tumor effects in vivo but not in vitro. Immune characterization showed HSV or dual therapy led to fewer intratumoral Treg, although with a more activated phenotype, together with more effector CD8 +T cells. Tocky analysis further showed that HSV/BRAFi dual treatment reduced the Tocky signal (reflecting engagement with cognate antigen), in both Treg and conventional subsets of CD4+, but not in CD8 +cells. However, a higher percentage of Treg than of conventional CD4 +maintained frequent engagement with antigens on treatment, reflecting a predominance of suppressive over effector function within the CD4 +compartment. The only T cell subset which correlated with a reduction in tumor growth was within Tocky signal positive conventional CD4+, supporting their therapeutic role. Targeting CD25 high, antigen-engaged Treg with a depleting anti-CD25 ICI, achieved complete cures in 100% of mice with triple therapy. Transcriptomic analysis confirmed reduction in Foxp3 on addition of anti-CD25 to HSV/BRAFi, as well as increases in expression of genes reflecting interferon signaling and cytotoxic activity. Conclusions Combination HSV/BRAFi is an immunogenic therapy for BRAF mutant melanoma, but cannot fully control tumors. Dual therapy results in changes in T cell dynamics within tumors, with relatively maintained antigen signaling in Treg compared with conv CD4+. Antigen-engaged CD4 +effectors correlate with tumor growth control, and depletion of Treg by addition of an anti-CD25 ICI, releasing suppression of conventional CD4 +effectors by Treg, enhances survival and activates immune signaling within tumors.

Background Oncolytic reovirus therapy for cancer induces a typical antiviral response to this RNA virus, including neutralizing antibodies. Concomitant treatment with cytotoxic chemotherapies has been hypothesized to improve the therapeutic potential of the virus. Chemotherapy side effects can include immunosuppression, which may slow the rate of the antiviral antibody response, as well as potentially make the patient more vulnerable to viral infection. Method Reovirus neutralizing antibody data were aggregated from separate phase I clinical trials of reovirus administered as a single agent or in combination with gemcitabine, docetaxel, carboplatin and paclitaxel doublet or cyclophosphamide. In addition, the kinetics of individual antibody isotypes were profiled in sera collected in these trials. Results These data demonstrate preserved antiviral antibody responses, with only moderately reduced kinetics with some drugs, most notably gemcitabine. All patients ultimately produced an effective neutralizing antibody response. Conclusion Patients’ responses to infection by reovirus are largely unaffected by the concomitant drug treatments tested, providing confidence that RNA viral treatment or infection is compatible with standard of care treatments.

Vascular protection using gene therapy can reduce the late toxicities of radiotherapy.

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.

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

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.