ABSTRACT
Background Oncolytic virus (OV) immunotherapy stands to widely improve patient outcomes in multiple solid malignancies. However, to date, the scheduling of OV therapy, with single versus multiple infusions on consecutive days, has not been correlated with immunological or clinical response. In hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, where the background liver is frequently chronically injured, repeated dosing may have deleterious implications, resulting in off-target immune-mediated damage, thereby tipping the balance between favourable clinical response and hepatotoxicity. As such, elucidation of the optimum dosing regime is necessary to ensure therapy, whilst limiting damage to the background liver.
Methods Herein, we expand upon our previous experience in neoadjuvant OV therapy to compare the immunological response from single versus repeated doses of reovirus in cancer patients. The impact of OV immunotherapy on HCC outcomes was examined in vivo following a high fat diet or induced liver fibrosis in the context of an abnormal background liver. Furthermore, we assess, in a syngeneic model of HCC, the potential immune-mediated toxicity of single versus multiple virus infusions in combination with PD-1 and PD-L1 blockade.
Results Clinical trial data indicate that a single dose of reovirus is equivalent or superior to repeat doses in achieving: (a) induction of an inflammatory cytokine/chemokine response; (b) peripheral blood immune cell activation; and (c) migration of activated CD8+ CTLs. Repeated doses on consecutive days do not improve the amplitude or duration of the immune response following virus infusion. Furthermore, repeated viral dosing leads to an unwanted influx of activated T cells into background liver. An increase in PD-L1 expression on T cells resulting from a single virus dose was observed. Combination therapy of reovirus plus anti-PD-L1, but not anti-PD-1, limited tumour growth and extended survival in vivo.
Conclusions A single dose of oncolytic virus is equivalent or superior to multiple consecutive doses in inducing an anti-tumour immune response. Combination immune checkpoint blockade with anti-PD-L1 holds potential to maximise the beneficial effects of a single dose, whilst simultaneously avoiding undesirable toxicities in the background liver in the context of HCC.
Competing Interest Statement
MC is an employee of Oncolytics Biotech Inc., Calgary from which AS and AAM have received research grants.
Clinical Trial
EudraCT number 2007-000258-29 EudraCT number 2011-005635-10
Funding Statement
Adel Samson is the recipient of a Cancer Research UK Clinical Research Fellowship. We are also grateful for support from Yorkshire Cancer Research. Salvatore Papa was funded in part from Rosetrees Trust (M894) and Guts UK (DGO2019_02).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
For the Reo013 'repeated doses' trial: - European Medicines Agency (Europe) gave full ethical approval (European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trial Database number 2007-000258-29) - The Medicines and Health products Regulatory Agency (UK) gave full ethical approval (reference number 16767/0222/001-0001) - The National Research Ethics Service (Leeds, UK) gave full ethical approval (reference number 08/H1306/73) - The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (Leeds, UK) gave full ethical approval (reference number CO06/8048) For the ReoBrain 'one dose' trial: - European Medicines Agency (Europe) gave full ethical approval (European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trial Database number 2011-005635-10) - The Health Research Authority (London, UK) gave full ethical approval (reference number 18/LO/0080) - The Integrated Research Application System (UK) gave full ethical approval (reference number 235809) - The National Research Ethics Service (Leeds, UK) gave full ethical approval (reference number 12/YH/0402)
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
