Katie Twigger

A phase I study of intravenous oncolytic reovirus type 3 dearing in patients with advanced cancer

Purpose: To determine the safety and feasibility of daily i.v. administration of wild-type oncolytic reovirus (type 3 Dearing) to patients with advanced cancer, assess viral excretion kinetics and antiviral immune responses, identify tumor localization and replication, and describe antitumor activity. Experimental Design: Patients received escalating doses of reovirus up to 3 × 1010 TCID50 for 5 consecutive days every 4 weeks. Viral excretion was assessed by reverse transcription-PCR and antibody response by cytotoxicity neutralization assay. Pretreatment and post-treatment tumor biopsies were obtained to measure viral uptake and replication. Results: Thirty-three patients received 76 courses of reovirus from 1 × 108 for 1 day up to 3 × 1010 TCID50 for 5 days, repeated every four weeks. Dose-limiting toxicity was not seen. Common grade 1 to 2 toxicities included fever, fatigue, and headache, which were dose and cycle independent. Viral excretion at day 15 was not detected by reverse transcription-PCR at 25 cycles and only in 5 patients at 35 cycles. Neutralizing antibodies were detected in all patients and peaked at 4 weeks. Viral localization and replication in tumor biopsies were confirmed in 3 patients. Antitumor activity was seen by radiologic and tumor marker (carcinoembryonic antigen, CA19.9, and prostate-specific antigen) evaluation. Conclusions: Oncolytic reovirus can be safely and repeatedly administered by i.v. injection at doses up to 3 × 1010 TCID50 for 5 days every 4 weeks without evidence of severe toxicities. Productive reoviral infection of metastatic tumor deposits was confirmed. Reovirus is a safe agent that warrants further evaluation in phase II studies.

Cyclophosphamide Facilitates Antitumor Efficacy against Subcutaneous Tumors following Intravenous Delivery of Reovirus

Purpose: The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether it is possible to achieve truly systemic delivery of oncolytic reovirus, in immunocompetent hosts, using cyclophosphamide to overcome some of the barriers to effective intratumoral delivery and replication of i.v. injected virus. Experimental Design: I.v. delivery of reovirus was combined with different regimens of i.p. administered cyclophosphamide in C57Bl/6 mice bearing established s.c. B16 tumors. Intratumoral viral replication, tumor size, and survival were measured along with levels of neutralizing antibody (NAb) in the blood. Finally, differential toxicities of the virus/cyclophosphamide regimens were monitored through viral replication in systemic organs, survival, and cardiac damage. Results: Repeated i.v. injection of reovirus was poorly effective at seeding intratumoral viral replication/oncolysis. However, by combining i.v. virus with cyclophosphamide, viral titers of between 107 and 108 plaque-forming units per milligram were recovered from regressing tumors. Doses of cyclophosphamide that ablated NAb were associated with severe toxicities, characterized by viral replication in systemic organs—toxicities that are mirrored by repeated reovirus injections into B-cell knockout mice. Next, we restructured the dosing of cyclophosphamide and i.v. virus such that a dose of 3 mg cyclophosphamide was administered 24 h before reovirus injection, and this schedule was repeated every 6 days. Using this protocol, high levels of intratumoral viral access and replication (∼107 plaque-forming units per milligram tumor) were maintained along with systemically protective levels of NAb and only very mild, non–life-threatening toxicity. Conclusion: NAb to oncolytic viruses play a dual role in the context of systemic viral delivery; on one hand, they hinder repeated administration of virus but on the other, they provide an important safety mechanism by which virus released from vigorous intratumoral replication is neutralized before it can disseminate and cause toxicity. These data support the use of cyclophosphamide to modulate, but not ablate, patient NAb, in development of carefully controlled clinical trials of the systemic administration of oncolytic viruses.

Phase I/II Trial of Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Chemotherapy in Combination with Intravenous Oncolytic Reovirus in Patients with Advanced Malignancies

Purpose: Reovirus type 3 Dearing (RT3D) replicates preferentially in Ras-activated cancers. RT3D shows synergistic in vitro cytotoxicity in combination with platins and taxanes. The purpose of this phase I/II study was to assess RT3D combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with advanced cancers. Experimental Design: Patients were initially treated in a dose-escalating, phase I trial with intravenous RT3D days 1 to 5, carboplatin [area under curve (AUC) 5, day 1] and paclitaxel (175 mg/m2, day 1) 3-weekly. RT3D was escalated through three dose levels: 3 × 109, 1 × 1010, and 3 × 1010 TCID50 in cohorts of three. Primary endpoints were to define the maximum tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicity and to recommend a dose for phase II studies. Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetics, immune response, and antitumor activity. A subsequent phase II study using the 3 × 1010 TCID50 dose characterized the response rate in patients with head and neck cancer. Results: Thirty-one heavily pretreated patients received study therapy. There were no dose-limiting toxicities during dose-escalation and most toxicities were grade I/II. Overall effectiveness rates were as follows: one patient had a complete response (3.8%), six patients (23.1%) had partial response, two patients (7.6%) had major clinical responses clinically evaluated in radiation pretreated lesions which are not evaluable by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), nine patients (34.6%) had stable disease, and eight patients (30.8%) had disease progression. Viral shedding was minimal and antiviral immune responses were attenuated compared with previous single-agent data for RT3D. Conclusions: The combination of RT3D plus carboplatin/paclitaxel is well tolerated with evidence of activity in cancer of the head and neck. A randomized phase III study is currently open for recruitment. Clin Cancer Res; 18(7); 2080–9. ©2012 AACR.

REO-10: A Phase I Study of Intravenous Reovirus and Docetaxel in Patients with Advanced Cancer

Purpose: REOLYSIN (Oncolytics Biotech) consists of a wild-type oncolytic reovirus, which has selective cytotoxicity for tumor cells while sparing normal cells. In a phase I study as a single agent, repeated infusions of reovirus were safe with evidence of antitumor activity. Preclinical studies indicate potential for synergy between reovirus and chemotherapeutic agents. A multicenter, phase I dose escalation study was designed to assess the safety of combining reovirus with docetaxel chemotherapy in patients with advanced cancer. Experimental Design: Patients received 75 mg/m2 docetaxel (day 1) and escalating doses of reovirus up to 3 × 1010 TCID50 (days 1-5) every 3 weeks. Results: Twenty-five patients were enrolled, and 24 patients were exposed to treatment, with 23 completing at least one cycle and 16 suitable for response assessment. Dose-limiting toxicity of grade 4 neutropenia was seen in one patient, but the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. Antitumor activity was seen with one complete response and three partial responses. A disease control rate (combined complete response, partial response, and stable disease) of 88% was observed. Immunohistochemical analysis of reovirus protein expression was observed in posttreatment tumor biopsies from three patients. Conclusion: The combination of reovirus and docetaxel is safe, with evidence of objective disease response, and warrants further evaluation in a phase II study at a recommended schedule of docetaxel (75 mg/m2, three times weekly) and reovirus (3 × 1010 TCID50, days 1-5, every 3 weeks). Clin Cancer Res; 16(22); 5564–72. ©2010 AACR.

Two-Stage Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of Intratumoral Reovirus Type 3 Dearing and Palliative Radiotherapy in Patients with Advanced Cancers

Purpose: To determine the safety and feasibility of combining intratumoral reovirus and radiotherapy in patients with advanced cancer and to assess viral biodistribution, reoviral replication in tumors, and antiviral immune responses. Experimental Design: Patients with measurable disease amenable to palliative radiotherapy were enrolled. In the first stage, patients received radiotherapy (20 Gy in five fractions) plus two intratumoral injections of RT3D at doses between 1 × 108 and 1 × 1010 TCID50. In the second stage, the radiotherapy dose was increased (36 Gy in 12 fractions) and patients received two, four, or six doses of RT3D at 1 × 1010 TCID50. End points were safety, viral replication, immunogenicity, and antitumoral activity. Results: Twenty-three patients with various solid tumors were treated. Dose-limiting toxicity was not seen. The most common toxicities were grade 2 (or lower) pyrexia, influenza-like symptoms, vomiting, asymptomatic lymphopenia, and neutropenia. There was no exacerbation of the acute radiation reaction. Reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) studies of blood, urine, stool, and sputum were negative for viral shedding. In the low-dose (20 Gy in five fractions) radiation group, two of seven evaluable patients had a partial response and five had stable disease. In the high-dose (36 Gy in 12 fractions) radiation group, five of seven evaluable patients had partial response and two stable disease. Conclusions: The combination of intratumoral RT3D and radiotherapy was well tolerated. The favorable toxicity profile and lack of vector shedding means that this combination should be evaluated in newly diagnosed patients receiving radiotherapy with curative intent. Clin Cancer Res; 16(11); 3067–77. ©2010 AACR.

Enhanced in vitro and in vivo cytotoxicity of combined reovirus and radiotherapy

Purpose: To test combination treatment schedules of reovirus and radiation in human and murine tumor cells in vitro and in vivo. Experimental Design:In vitro cytotoxicity and cell cycle effects of reovirus given alone and combined with radiotherapy were assessed by colorimetric, tissue culture infectious dose 50, and fluorescence-activated cell sorting–based assays. Interactions between the agents were evaluated using combination index analysis. The effect of different schedules of reovirus and radiotherapy on viral replication and cytotoxicity was tested in vitro and the combination was assessed in three tumor models in vivo. Results: Characterization of reovirus cytotoxicity in a panel of cell lines yielded a range of sensitivities. Combined reovirus and radiotherapy yielded statistically significantly increased cytotoxicity, particularly in cell lines with moderate susceptibility to reovirus alone. The enhanced cytotoxicity of the combination occurred independently of treatment sequence or schedule. Radiation did not affect viral replication and only reduced reoviral cytotoxicity after clinically irrelevant single doses (>50 Gy). Combination index analysis revealed synergy between radiation (3-10 Gy) and reovirus at multiplicities of infection between 0.001 and 1. Combination treatment significantly increased apoptosis in tumor cells relative to either single-agent treatment. In vivo studies using xenograft and syngeneic tumors showed enhanced activity of the combination relative to reovirus or radiation alone (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Combining reovirus and radiotherapy synergistically enhances cytotoxicity in a variety of tumor cells in vitro and in vivo. These results offer strong support for translational clinical trials of reovirus plus radiotherapy that have been initiated in the clinic.

Inflammatory tumour cell killing by oncolytic reovirus for the treatment of melanoma

Reovirus is a promising unmodified double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) anti-cancer oncolytic virus, which is thought to specifically target cells with activated Ras. Although reovirus has been tested in a wide range of preclinical models and has entered early clinical trials, it has not previously been tested for the treatment of human melanoma. Here, we show that reovirus effectively kills and replicates in both human melanoma cell lines and freshly resected tumour; intratumoural injection also causes regression of melanoma in a xenograft in vivo model. Reovirus-induced melanoma death is blocked by caspase inhibition and is dependent on constituents of the Ras/RalGEF/p38 pathway. Reovirus melanoma killing is more potent than, and distinct from, chemotherapy or radiotherapy-induced cell death; a range of inflammatory cytokines and chemokines are released by infected tumour cells, while IL-10 secretion is abrogated. Furthermore, the inflammatory response generated by reovirus-infected tumour cells causes bystander toxicity against reovirus-resistant tumour cells and activates human myeloid dendritic cells (DC) in vitro. Hence, reovirus is suitable for clinical testing in melanoma, and may provide a useful danger signal to reverse the immunologically suppressive environment characteristic of this tumour.

A phase I study of the combination of intravenous reovirus type 3 Dearing and gemcitabine in patients with advanced cancer.

Purpose: This study combined systemic administration of the oncolytic reovirus type 3 Dearing (reovirus) with chemotherapy in human subjects. We aimed to determine the safety and feasibility of combining reovirus administration with gemcitabine and to describe the effects of gemcitabine on the antireoviral immune response. Experimental Design: Patients received reovirus in various doses, initially we dosed for five consecutive days but this was poorly tolerated. We amended the protocol to administer a single dose and administered up to 3 × 1010 TCID50. Toxicity was assessed by monitoring of clinical and laboratory measurements. We assessed antibody response by cytotoxicity neutralization assay. Results: Sixteen patients received 47 cycles of reovirus. The two initial patients and one patient in the final cohort experienced dose limiting toxicity (DLT). The DLTs consisted of two asymptomatic grade 3 liver enzyme rises and one asymptomatic grade 3 troponin I rise. Common toxicities consisted of known reovirus and gemcitabine associated side effects. Further analysis showed a potential interaction between reovirus and gemcitabine in causing liver enzyme rises. Grade 3 rises in liver enzymes were associated with concomitant aminocetophen use. Importantly, the duration of the liver enzyme rise was short and reversible. Neutralizing antibody responses to reovirus were attenuated both in time-to-occurrence and peak height of the response. Conclusions: Reovirus at the dose of 1 × 1010 TCID50 can be safely combined with full dose gemcitabine. Combination of reovirus with gemcitabine affects the neutralizing antibody response and this could impact both safety and efficacy of this treatment schedule. Clin Cancer Res; 17(3); 581–8. ©2010 AACR.

Reovirus exerts potent oncolytic effects in head and neck cancer cell lines that are independent of signalling in the EGFR pathway

BackgroundReovirus exploits aberrant signalling downstream of Ras to mediate tumor-specific oncolysis. Since ~90% squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck (SCCHN) over-express EGFR and SCCHN cell lines are sensitive to oncolytic reovirus, we conducted a detailed analysis of the effects of reovirus in 15 head and neck cancer cell lines. Both pre- and post-entry events were studied in an attempt to define biomarkers predictive of sensitivity/resistance to reovirus. In particular, we analysed the role of EGFR/Ras signalling in determining virus-mediated cytotoxicity in SCCHN.MethodsTo test whether EGFR pathway activity was predictive of increased sensitivity to reovirus, correlative analyses between reoviral IC50 by MTT assay and EGFR levels by western blot and FACS were conducted. Inhibition or stimulation of EGFR signalling were analysed for their effect on reoviral oncolysis by MTT assay, and viral growth by TCID50 assay. We next analysed the effects of inhibiting signalling downstream of Ras, by specific inhibitors of p38MAPK, PI3-K or MEK, on reoviral killing examined by MTT assay. The role of PKR in reoviral killing was also determined by blockade of PKR using 2-aminopurine and assaying for cell survival by MTT assay. The apoptotic response of SCCHN to reovirus was examined by western blot analysis of caspase 3 cleavage.ResultsCorrelative analyses between reoviral sensitivity and EGFR levels revealed no association. Intermediate sub-viral and core particles showed the same infectivity/cytotoxicity as intact reovirus. Therefore, sensitivity was not determined by cell entry. In 4 cell lines, oncolysis and viral growth were both unaffected by inhibition or stimulation of EGFR signalling. Inhibition of signalling downstream of Ras did not abrogate reoviral oncolysis and, in addition, modulation of PKR using 2-aminopurine did not alter reovirus sensitivity in resistant cell lines. Caspase 3 cleavage was not detected in infected cells and oncolysis was observed in pan-caspase inhibited cells.ConclusionsIn summary, reovirus is potently oncolytic in a broad panel of SCCHN cell lines. Attempts to define sensitivity/resistance by analysis of the EGFR/Ras/MAPK pathway have failed to provide a clear predictive biomarker of response. Further analysis of material from in vitro and clinical studies is ongoing in an attempt to shed further light on this issue.

Synergistic cytotoxicity of oncolytic reovirus in combination with cisplatin-paclitaxel doublet chemotherapy

Oncolytic reovirus is currently under active investigation in a range of tumour types. Early phase studies have shown that this agent has modest monotherapy efficacy and its future development is likely to focus on combination regimens with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Indeed, phase I/II clinical trials have confirmed that reovirus can be safely combined with cytotoxic drugs, including a platin–taxane doublet regimen, which is currently being tested in a phase III clinical trial in patients with relapsed/metastatic head and neck cancer. Therefore, we have tested this triple (reovirus, cisplatin, paclitaxel) combination therapy in a panel of four head and neck cancer cell lines. Using the combination index (CI) method, the triple therapy demonstrated synergistic cytotoxicity in vitro in both malignant and non-malignant cell lines. In head and neck cancer cell lines, this was associated with enhanced caspase 3 and 7 cleavage, but no increase in viral replication. In vitro analyses confirmed colocalisation of markers of reovirus infection and caspase 3. Triple therapy was significantly more effective than reovirus or cisplatin–paclitaxel in athymic nude mice. These data suggest that the combination of reovirus plus platin–taxane doublet chemotherapy has significant activity in head and neck cancer and underpin the current phase III study in this indication.