Mansfield, David

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 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.

Abstract Purpose: The CANON [CAVATAK in NON–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC)] study evaluated a novel ICAM-1–targeted immunotherapeutic-coxsackievirus A21 as a novel oncolytic agent against bladder cancer. Patients and Methods: Fifteen patients enrolled in this “window of opportunity” phase I study, exposing primary bladder cancers to CAVATAK prior to surgery. The first 9 patients received intravesical administration of monotherapy CAVATAK; in the second stage, 6 patients received CAVATAK with a subtherapeutic dose of mitomycin C, known to enhance expression of ICAM-1 on bladder cancer cells. The primary endpoint was to determine patient safety and maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Secondary endpoints were evidence of viral replication, induction of inflammatory cytokines, antitumor activity, and viral-induced changes in resected tissue. Results: Clinical activity of CAVATAK was demonstrated by induction of tumor inflammation and hemorrhage following either single or multiple administrations of CAVATAK in multiple patients, and a complete resolution of tumor in 1 patient. Whether used alone or in combination with mitomycin C, CAVATAK caused marked inflammatory changes within NMIBC tissue biopsies by upregulating IFN-inducible genes, including both immune checkpoint inhibitory genes (PD-L1 and LAG3) and Th1-associated chemokines, as well as the induction of the innate activator RIG-I, compared with bladder cancer tissue from untreated patients. No significant toxicities were reported in any patient, from either virus or combination therapy. Conclusions: The acceptable safety profile of CAVATAK, proof of viral targeting, replication, and tumor cell death together with the virus-mediated increases in “immunological heat” within the tumor microenvironment all indicate that CAVATAK may be potentially considered as a novel therapeutic for NMIBC.

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