Rojas Juan J, Sampath Padma, Hou Weizhou, Thorne Steve H
Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Department of Immunology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Clin Cancer Res. 2015 Dec 15;21(24):5543-51. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2009. Epub 2015 Jul 17.
Recent data from randomized clinical trials with oncolytic viral therapies and with cancer immunotherapies have finally recapitulated the promise these platforms demonstrated in preclinical models. Perhaps the greatest advance with oncolytic virotherapy has been the appreciation of the importance of activation of the immune response in therapeutic activity. Meanwhile, the understanding that blockade of immune checkpoints (with antibodies that block the binding of PD1 to PDL1 or CTLA4 to B7-2) is critical for an effective antitumor immune response has revitalized the field of immunotherapy. The combination of immune activation using an oncolytic virus and blockade of immune checkpoints is therefore a logical next step.
Here, we explore such combinations and demonstrate their potential to produce enhanced responses in mouse tumor models. Different combinations and regimens were explored in immunocompetent mouse models of renal and colorectal cancer. Bioluminescence imaging and immune assays were used to determine the mechanisms mediating synergistic or antagonistic combinations.
Interaction between immune checkpoint inhibitors and oncolytic virotherapy was found to be complex, with correct selection of viral strain, antibody, and timing of the combination being critical for synergistic effects. Indeed, some combinations produced antagonistic effects and loss of therapeutic activity. A period of oncolytic viral replication and directed targeting of the immune response against the tumor were required for the most beneficial effects, with CD8(+) and NK, but not CD4(+) cells mediating the effects.
These considerations will be critical in the design of the inevitable clinical translation of these combination approaches. Clin Cancer Res; 21(24); 5543-51. ©2015 AACR.See related commentary by Slaney and Darcy, p. 5417.
溶瘤病毒疗法和癌症免疫疗法的随机临床试验近期数据终于再次证实了这些平台在临床前模型中所展现的前景。溶瘤病毒疗法取得的最大进展或许在于认识到了免疫反应激活在治疗活性中的重要性。与此同时,对免疫检查点阻断(使用阻断PD1与PDL1结合或CTLA4与B7 - 2结合的抗体)对于有效的抗肿瘤免疫反应至关重要的理解,重振了免疫疗法领域。因此,使用溶瘤病毒激活免疫与阻断免疫检查点相结合是合乎逻辑的下一步。
在此,我们探索此类联合疗法,并证明它们在小鼠肿瘤模型中产生增强反应的潜力。在具有免疫活性的肾癌和结直肠癌小鼠模型中探索了不同的联合方式和方案。采用生物发光成像和免疫分析来确定介导协同或拮抗联合作用的机制。
发现免疫检查点抑制剂与溶瘤病毒疗法之间的相互作用很复杂,正确选择病毒株、抗体以及联合的时机对于协同效应至关重要。实际上,一些联合产生了拮抗作用并导致治疗活性丧失。最有益的效果需要一段溶瘤病毒复制期以及针对肿瘤的免疫反应定向靶向,由CD8(+)和NK细胞而非CD4(+)细胞介导这些效应。
这些考虑因素对于这些联合方法不可避免的临床转化设计至关重要。《临床癌症研究》;21(24);5543 - 5551。©2015美国癌症研究协会。见Slaney和Darcy的相关评论,第5417页。