Oncolytic Virotherapy as Emerging Immunotherapeutic Modality: Potential of Parvovirus H-1

Human tumors develop multiple strategies to evade recognition and efficient suppression by the immune system. Therefore, a variety of immunotherapeutic strategies have been developed to reactivate and reorganize the human immune system. The recent development of new antibodies against immune check points may help to overcome the immune silencing induced by human tumors. Some of these antibodies have already been approved for treatment of various solid tumor entities. Interestingly, targeting antibodies may be combined with standard chemotherapy or radiation protocols. Furthermore, recent evidence indicates that intratumoral (it) or intravenous (iv) injections of replicative oncolytic viruses such as herpes simplex-, pox-, parvo- or adenoviruses may also reactivate the human immune system. By generating tumor cell lysates in situ, oncolytic viruses overcome cellular tumor resistance mechanisms and induce immunogenic tumor cell death resulting in the recognition of newly released tumor antigens.This is in particular the case of the oncolytic parvovirus H-1 (H-1PV) which is able to kill human tumor cells and stimulate an antitumor immune response through increased presentation of tumor-associated antigens, maturation of dendritic cells and release of proinflammatory cytokines. Current research and clinical studies aim to assess the potential of oncolytic virotherapy and its combination with immunotherapeutic agents or conventional treatments to further induce effective antitumoral immune responses

Haemodynamic effects of plasma-expansion with hyperoncotic albumin in cirrhotic patients with renal failure: a prospective interventional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patients with advanced cirrhosis of the liver typically display circulatory disturbance. Haemodynamic management may be critical for avoiding and treating functional renal failure in such patients. This study investigated the effects of plasma expansion with hyperoncotic albumin solution and the role of static haemodynamic parameters in predicting volume responsiveness in patients with advanced cirrhosis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients with advanced cirrhosis (Child B and C) of the liver receiving albumin substitution because of renal compromise were studied using trans-pulmonary thermodilution. Paired measurements before and after two infusions of 200 ml of 20% albumin per patient were recorded and standard haemodynamic parameters such as central venous pressure (CVP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI), cardiac index (CI) and derived variables were assessed, including global end-diastolic blood volume index (GEDVI), a parameter that reflects central blood volume</p> <p>Results</p> <p>100 measurements in 50 patients (33 m/17 w; age 56 years (± 8); Child-Pugh-score 12 (± 2), serum creatinine 256 μmol (± 150) were analyzed. Baseline values suggested decreased central blood volumes GEDVI = 675 ml/m²(± 138) despite CVP within the normal range (11 mmHg (± 5). After infusion, GEDVI, CI and CVP increased (682 ml/m²(± 128) vs. 744 ml/m²(± 171), p < 0.001; 4.3 L/min/m²(± 1.1) vs. 4.7 L/min/m²(± 1.1), p < 0.001; 12 mmHg (± 6) vs. 14 mmHg (± 6), p < 0.001 respectively) and systemic vascular resistance decreased (1760 dyn s/cm⁵/m²(± 1144) vs. 1490 dyn s/cm⁵/m²(± 837); p < 0.001). Changes in GEDVI, but not CVP, correlated with changes in CI (r²= 0.51; p < 0.001). To assess the value of static haemodynamic parameters at baseline in predicting an increase in CI of 10%, receiver-operating-characteristic curves were constructed. The areas under the curve were 0.766 (p < 0.001) for SVRI, 0.723 (p < 0.001) for CI, 0.652 (p = 0.010) for CVP and 0.616 (p = 0.050) for GEDVI.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In a substantial proportion of patients with advanced cirrhosis, plasma expansion results in an increase in central blood volume. GEDVI but not CVP behaves as an indicator of cardiac preload, whereas high baseline SVRI is predictive of fluid responsiveness.</p

Supp_1 – Supplemental material for Cytokeratin-18 fragments predict treatment response and overall survival in gastric cancer in a randomized controlled trial

<p>Supplemental material, Supp_1 for Cytokeratin-18 fragments predict treatment response and overall survival in gastric cancer in a randomized controlled trial by Michael Nagel, Julia Schulz, Annett Maderer, Katrin Goepfert, Nadine Gehrke, Thomas Thomaidis, Peter C Thuss-Patience, Salah E Al-Batran, Susanna Hegewisch-Becker, Peter Grimminger, Peter Robert Galle, Markus Möhler and Jörn Markus Schattenberg in Tumor Biology</p

Virotherapy in Germany—Recent Activities in Virus Engineering, Preclinical Development, and Clinical Studies

Virotherapy research involves the development, exploration, and application of oncolytic viruses that combine direct killing of cancer cells by viral infection, replication, and spread (oncolysis) with indirect killing by induction of anti-tumor immune responses. Oncolytic viruses can also be engineered to genetically deliver therapeutic proteins for direct or indirect cancer cell killing. In this review—as part of the special edition on “State-of-the-Art Viral Vector Gene Therapy in Germany”—the German community of virotherapists provides an overview of their recent research activities that cover endeavors from screening and engineering viruses as oncolytic cancer therapeutics to their clinical translation in investigator-initiated and sponsored multi-center trials. Preclinical research explores multiple viral platforms, including new isolates, serotypes, or fitness mutants, and pursues unique approaches to engineer them towards increased safety, shielded or targeted delivery, selective or enhanced replication, improved immune activation, delivery of therapeutic proteins or RNA, and redirecting antiviral immunity for cancer cell killing. Moreover, several oncolytic virus-based combination therapies are under investigation. Clinical trials in Germany explore the safety and potency of virotherapeutics based on parvo-, vaccinia, herpes, measles, reo-, adeno-, vesicular stomatitis, and coxsackie viruses, including viruses encoding therapeutic proteins or combinations with immune checkpoint inhibitors. These research advances represent exciting vantage points for future endeavors of the German virotherapy community collectively aimed at the implementation of effective virotherapeutics in clinical oncology

Immunotherapy in gastrointestinal cancer: Recent results, current studies and future perspectives

The new therapeutic approach of using immune checkpoint inhibitors as anticancer agents is a landmark innovation. Early studies suggest that immune checkpoint inhibition might also be effective in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. To improve the efficacy of immunotherapy, different strategies are currently under evaluation. This review summarises the discussion during the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Translational Research Meeting in Mainz in November 2014 and provides an update on the most recent results of immune therapy in gastrointestinal cancers. Knowledge of potential relationships between tumour cells and their microenvironment including the immune system will be essential in gastrointestinal malignancies. In this context, the density of T cell infiltration within colorectal cancer metastases has been associated with response to chemotherapy, and a high expression of programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) in advanced gastric cancer has been related with poor prognosis. Effective targets might include neo-antigens encoded from genes carrying tumour-specific somatic mutations. Tailored immunotherapy based on such mutations could enable the effective targeting of an individual patient's tumour with vaccines produced on demand. Other strategies considering checkpoint inhibitors have shown efficacy by targeting cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 and PD-1 or PD-L1. DNA mismatch repair-deficient tumours appear to be potentially the best candidates for these therapies. Finally, the combination of oncolytic viruses with immunotherapy might boost antitumour activity as well. Further evaluation of these promising immunological therapeutic approaches will require large prospective clinical studies

Efficacy of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised adults with COVID-19: a double-bind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 μg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04492475. Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87–1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3–7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2–6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69–2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA)