Vile, Richard G.

Abstract Oncolytic virotherapy offers the potential to treat tumors both as a single agent and in combination with traditional modalities such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Here we describe an effective, fully systemic treatment regimen, which combines virotherapy, acting essentially as an adjuvant immunotherapy, with adoptive cell transfer (ACT). The combination of ACT with systemic administration of a vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) engineered to express the endogenous melanocyte antigen glycoprotein 100 (gp100) resulted in regression of established melanomas and generation of antitumor immunity. Tumor response was associated with in vivo T-cell persistence and activation as well as treatment-related vitiligo. However, in a proportion of treated mice, initial tumor regressions were followed by recurrences. Therapy was further enhanced by targeting an additional tumor antigen with the VSV-antigen + ACT combination strategy, leading to sustained response in 100% of mice. Together, our findings suggest that systemic virotherapy combined with antigen-expressing VSV could be used to support and enhance clinical immunotherapy protocols with adoptive T-cell transfer, which are already used in the clinic. Cancer Res; 72(18); 4753–64. ©2012 AACR.

An antitumor T-cell response can lead to tumor control without clearing all tumor cells. As long as residual tumor cells remain, there is a constant risk of escape from that T-cell response. We previously showed that adoptive transfer of anti-ova OT-I T cells into B16ova-bearing mice led to tumor regression followed by escape of tumors that had lost the ova gene, rendering the OT-I T cells ineffective. In this study, we hypothesized that simultaneous transfer of cytotoxic T lymphocytes targeted against two independent antigens would reduce selection for single-antigen-loss cells, thereby limiting tumor escape. Using OT-I and Pmel T cells to treat B16ova tumors, we found that early cotransfer could prevent tumor emergence in most mice, whereas neither T-cell specificity alone was able to do so. When combined with total body irradiation for the treatment of larger 7-day tumors, cotransfer was also better at limiting tumor recurrence, and the tumors that did escape combination therapy continued to express both target antigens. As adoptively transferred T cells also persisted in vivo , even in mice with recurrent tumors, we hypothesized that restimulation of these antitumor T cells would prolong survival of mice with recurrent tumors. Consistent with this hypothesis, administration of a low-dose regimen of cyclophosphamide following tumor escape slowed tumor growth in mice that had previously received T-cell therapy, but not in control-treated mice, an effect that was associated with increased activation of T cells in vitro by low- but not high-dose cyclophosphamide.

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

Abstract Oncolytic viruses consist of a diverse range of DNA and RNA viruses traditionally thought to mediate their effects by exploiting aberrations in tumor pathways, allowing preferential viral replication in, and killing of, tumor cells. Clinical development has progressed to late-phase trials, potentially heralding their introduction into clinical practice. However, despite this promise, the activity of oncolytic viruses has yet to achieve the potential suggested in preclinical models. To address this disparity, we need to recognize the complex interaction among oncolytic viruses, tumor, chemotherapy, and host immune system, and appreciate that direct oncolysis may not be the only factor to play an important role in oncolytic virus-mediated antitumor efficacy. Although key in inactivating viruses, the host immune system can also act as an ally against tumors, interacting with oncolytic viruses under the right conditions to generate useful and long-lasting antitumor immunity. Preclinical data also suggest that oncolytic viruses show synergy with standard therapies, which may offer improved clinical response rates. Here, we explore clinical and preclinical data on clinically relevant oncolytic viruses, highlighting areas of progress, uncertainty, and translational opportunity, with respect to immune recruitment and therapeutic synergy. Clin Cancer Res; 17(13); 4214–24. ©2011 AACR.

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.