Zhou, Yumei

Background: Morreton virus (MORV) is an oncolytic Vesiculovirus , genetically distinct from vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV). Aim: To report that MORV induced potent cytopathic effects (CPEs) in cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in vitro models. Approach and Results: In preliminary safety analyses, high intranasal doses (up to 10 10 50% tissue culture infectious dose [TCID 50 ]) of MORV were not associated with significant adverse effects in immune competent, non–tumor‐bearing mice. MORV was shown to be efficacious in a Hep3B hepatocellular cancer xenograft model but not in a CCA xenograft HuCCT1 model. In an immune competent, syngeneic murine CCA model, single intratumoral treatments with MORV (1 × 10 7 TCID 50 ) triggered a robust antitumor immune response leading to substantial tumor regression and disease control at a dose 10‐fold lower than VSV (1 × 10 8 TCID 50 ). MORV led to increased CD8 + cytotoxic T cells without compensatory increases in tumor‐associated macrophages and granulocytic or monocytic myeloid‐derived suppressor cells. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that wild‐type MORV is safe and can induce potent tumor regression via immune‐mediated and immune‐independent mechanisms in HCC and CCA animal models without dose limiting adverse events. These data warrant further development and clinical translation of MORV as an oncolytic virotherapy platform.

218 Background: Evidence from mouse studies shows that Oncolytic viral mode of tumor cell killing can boost the cytotoxic T lymphocyte response against tumor associated antigens (TAA), leading to ‘bystander’ killing of uninfected tumor cells. Methods: To investigate whether oncolytic virotherapy can boost immune responses to tumor antigens in human subjects we studied T cell responses to 10 different TAA reported to have high expression in patients with multiple myeloma (n = 10) before and after intravenous administration of an oncolytic measles virus (MV-NIS). Baseline and 6 week post-therapy PBMC samples were stimulated with peptides specific to each of the selected TAA and their responses to this antigenic stimulation were measured using IFNγ ELISPOT. Results: Despite their prior exposure to multiple immunosuppressive treatment regimens, some of the tested patients had higher T cell responses to some of the TAA even prior to MV-NIS. Baseline T cell responses against MAGEc1 were present in 50% of the patients, and against hTERT and NYESO-1 in 30% of the patients. Furthermore, MV-NIS treatment significantly boosted T cell responses against NYESO-1, MAGEc1, MAGEA1 and MUC1 in 40% of the patients. Interestingly, in one outlier patient who achieved a stringent and durable complete disease remission after MV-NIS therapy, strong baseline T cell responses were present against 8 of the 10 tested TAA but did not change significantly after virotherapy. Based on the T cell responses to the TAA, three distinct phenotypes can be identified. Phenotype 1 was characterized by positive T cell responses to TAA prior and post therapy, Phenotype 2 was characterized by positive T cell responses to TAA only post therapy and phenotype 3 was characterized by negative T cell responses to TAA prior and post therapy. Conclusions: Our data suggests oncolytic measles virotherapy boosted the cytotoxic T lymphocyte response against tumor associated antigens in some of the patients. Identifying patient’s phenotype based on responsiveness to the TAA could be useful marker for identifying the immune responsive state in multiple myeloma patients and identify patients who can be most responsive to oncolytic measles virotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT00450814.