Oncolytic Viro-Immunotherapy: An Emerging Option in the Treatment of Gliomas

Abstract

The prognosis of malignant gliomas remains poor, with median survival fewer than 20 months and a 5-year survival rate merely 5%. Their primary location in the central nervous system (CNS) and its immunosuppressive environment with little T cell infiltration has rendered cancer therapies mostly ineffective, and breakthrough therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shown limited benefit. However, tumor immunotherapy is developing rapidly and can help overcome these obstacles. But for now, malignant gliomas remain fatal with short survival and limited therapeutic options. Oncolytic virotherapy (OVT) is a unique antitumor immunotherapy wherein viruses selectively or preferentially kill tumor cells, replicate and spread through tumors while inducing antitumor immune responses. OVTs can also recondition the tumor microenvironment and improve the efficacy of other immunotherapies by escalating the infiltration of immune cells into tumors. Some OVTs can penetrate the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and possess tropism for the CNS, enabling intravenous delivery. Despite the therapeutic potential displayed by oncolytic viruses (OVs), optimizing OVT has proved challenging in clinical development, and marketing approvals for OVTs have been rare. In June 2021 however, as a genetically engineered OV based on herpes simplex virus-1 (G47Δ), teserpaturev got conditional and time-limited approval for the treatment of malignant gliomas in Japan. In this review, we summarize the current state of OVT, the synergistic effect of OVT in combination with other immunotherapies as well as the hurdles to successful clinical use. We also provide some suggestions to overcome the challenges in treating of gliomas.

Introduction

Gliomas, which arise from glial or their precursor/stem cells, including diffuse gliomas and non-diffuse gliomas, are the most common primary CNS tumors (1, 2). Approximately 100,000 people around the world are diagnosed with diffuse gliomas every year (3). Based on WHO 2016 classification, diffuse gliomas can be further classified as: diffuse or anaplastic astrocytoma, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-wild type; diffuse or anaplastic astrocytoma, IDH-mutant; glioblastoma (GBM), IDH-wild type; glioblastoma, IDH-mutant; and oligodendroglioma or anaplastic oligodendroglioma, IDH-mutant and 1p19q co-deletion (4, 5). GBM, another term for WHO grade IV astrocytoma, is the most common type in adults and it is about four times more common than anaplastic astrocytoma (6). Currently, the treatment of gliomas faces great difficulties:

• Gliomas have a poor prognosis after being treated with existing therapies (surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy) with median survival fewer than 20 months and a 5-year survival rate merely 4–5% (7, 8);

• The presence of the BBB renders many conventional cancer drugs ineffective;

• The immune-privileged environment in CNS makes immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, which has been widely studied in recent years, less effective in gliomas (9);

Over the last decade, hopes have risen that emerging immunotherapy could improve specific immune responses against tumor cells in patients with brain tumors (10–13). Despite intensive clinical research, the FDA is yet to approve an immunotherapy for glioma.

Oncolytic Viruses can selectively or preferentially infect tumor cells and induce tumor lysis. Some of them, including parvovirus H-1 and reovirus, can also penetrate the BBB and possess tropism for the CNS, enabling intravenous delivery in clinical trials (14, 15). Furthermore, OVs can activate the innate immune response and the adaptive anti-tumor immunity to target distant uninfected tumors cells. As of 2021, at least 15 different virus species are currently under study: adenovirus, herpes simplex virus-1 (HSV-1), parvovirus, vaccinia virus, myxoma virus, reovirus, enterovirus, measles virus, Newcastle disease virus (NDV), vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), retrovirus, Zika virus, M1 virus, Semliki Forest virus and Seneca Valley virus.

In this review, we will summarize the state of oncolytic virotherapy and its combination with other immunotherapies in gliomas.

Immunosuppressive Microenvironment of Gliomas

The BBB consists of endothelial cells, astrocytes and pericytes, forming tight junctions to make the CNS an immune-privileged environment. In healthy individuals, most of peripheral immune cells are excluded from entering the brain (16). However, T cell entry and immunosurveillance within the brain have been documented over the years (17, 18).

During inflammation, particularly, microglia within the brain undergo substantial phenotypic changes, and specific macrophage populations are recruited from circulating monocytes (19). Microglia are CNS-resident myeloid cells that migrate to the developing brain early in gestation (20). They are responsible for phagocytosis and synapse formation and pruning in both healthy and pathological states (21, 22). More and more preclinical and clinical studies found that microglia can modulate glioma growth via facilitating proliferation, invasion and stemness of gliomas (23–26). Furthermore, microglia can promote the recruitment of T-reg cells and anti-inflammatory macrophages from systemic circulation through the release of chemokine ligand 2 (CCL2) (27). Anti-inflammatory macrophages (AIM) in gliomas have reciprocal effects with microglia on enhancing tumorigenesis (28). AIM in gliomas are also suggested to support angiogenesis and mediate glioma recurrence (29, 30). Therefore, glioma-associated microglia and macrophages can be developed as therapeutic targets for glioma patients (31) (Figure 1).

Figure 1

It is also well-documented that tumors can secrete soluble factors in high concentrations, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs). These factors can destroy the endothelial tight junctions, degrade proteoglycans and induce numerous blood derived factors (32, 33). A significant challenge in treating brain tumors is to enable a drug to cross the BBB so the breakdown of the endothelial tight junctions can be an opportunity to deliver drugs to gliomas.

Despite increasing evidence showing that the notion of “immune-privileged” is inaccurate, brain tumors still can prevent the immunosurveillance of the CNS and foster antigenic ignorance - for example, in sphingosine 1 phosphate receptor 1 (S1PR1)-dependent fashion. S1PR1 is a G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) that binds sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P), a lipid second messenger. S1P-S1PR1 axis plays an important role in lymphocyte trafficking. The level of S1P1 on the surface of T-cells in GBM patients is decreased compared to healthy controls. The dysfunction of this axis results in T-cell trapping within lymphoid organs, preventing T-cells from trafficking to the brain (34, 35).

Owing to the vulnerability of the brain to changes in intracranial pressure, an immunosuppressive environment inhibits the development of intracranial inflammation, including tumor-related inflammation (36). Various cells (AIMs, microglia, astrocytes) in tumor microenvironment can produce high level of immunosuppressive cytokines like transforming growth factor β (TGFβ) and interleukin-10 (IL-10) in response to inflammatory stimuli (18, 37, 38). Glioma cells can generate a great amount of indolamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) to both inhibit T cell activity and promote the recruitment of regulatory T cells (Treg) through depletion of tryptophan from the microenvironment (39). Also, glioma cells attract both microglia and AIM to enhance tumor growth and promote immunosuppression (23). A large amount of arginase can be produced by microglia and tumor-infiltrating myeloid cells to inhibit T cell proliferation and function by depleting tissue arginine levels (18, 40, 41). Relatively low mutation load, little T cell infiltration and immunosuppressive microenvironment have been observed in GBM, making for a “cold” tumor microenvironment (10). It is generally accepted that this “cold” microenvironment makes ICIs less effective in the treatment of GBM (42).

Oncolytic Virotherapy for Gliomas

Oncolytic Virus

Oncolytic viruses are an emerging class of antitumor immunotherapies. Talimogene laherparepvec (T-Vec), a genetically engineered OV based on HSV-1, is the most prominent and the only FDA approved OV used for treating malignant melanoma (43). OVs can selectively or preferentially infect and kill tumor cells, while activating the immune system (44) (Figure 2), by the following general mechanisms:

• OVs can selectively or preferentially infect tumor cells and induce direct tumor lysis due to the deficient or inhibited antiviral innate immunity pathways (e.g. IFN pathway) in many tumor cells (45, 46).

• Tumor cell lysis due to OV infection can cause the release of tumor associated antigens (TAAs), cell-derived damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) and viral pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs), which can recruit dendritic cells (DCs) and innate lymphoid cells (e.g. NK cells) for early clearance of virus-infected cells (47).

• The release of TAAs, DAMPs, PAMPs, pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines by lysed tumor cells and innate immune cells can promote antigen presentation and antigen-specific adaptive immune responses (48, 49).

• The immune responses kill not only infected tumor cells, but also uninfected tumor cells through bystander effects (50, 51).

• OVs can promote the recruitment of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes into tumor sites, making the immunosuppressive microenvironment “hot” and suitable for other immunotherapies (52).

Figure 2

In the following, the particularities of these mechanisms in glioma are discussed. In glioblastoma cancer stem cells, antiviral innate immunity pathways (IFN pathway, TLR pathway) are reduced, which contributes to the tumor cell specificity of OVs (mechanism 1) (53, 54). Interestingly, due to the isolated location surrounded by mitotically silent normal neurons, malignant gliomas may be particularly suitable for treatment with OVs, which require active cell cycles for their replication (55, 56). Utilizing mechanisms 2-5, a growing body of evidence suggests that OVs can “heat” the immunologically “cold” micro-environment of GBM by inducing immunogenic cell death (ICD) and inflammation. In a large number of preclinical studies, ICD was induced by OVs, along with infiltration of cytotoxic T cells and reduced accumulation of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) (57, 58). Clinical studies have also shown that OVs can induce cytotoxic T cells infiltration and other relevant immune responses against glioma (59–61). Further research is needed to understand mechanisms of interaction of components in the tumor microenvironment to fully exploit the potential of OVs in glioma. Modern discoveries related to the molecular mechanisms of specific OVs are discussed in paragraphs “DNA Viruses” and “RNA Viruses”.

When considering OVs for glioma treatment, it is vital to exclude OVs which display neurotoxicity. With few exceptions, these viruses fall into one of two groups: 1) non-neurotoxic viruses and 2) neuro-attenuated viruses. Non-neurotoxic viruses are viruses that have not been observed to be neurotoxic and do not necessarily require additional engineering before being used for treatment, including parvovirus, myxoma virus, M1 virus and Seneca Valley virus (SVV) (62). Neuro-attenuated viruses are viruses with neurovirulent features that have been modified (e.g. by gene editing) to reduce neurotoxicity. Adenovirus, herpes simplex virus (HSV), VSV, poliovirus and measles virus fall under this category. The various mechanisms of viral attenuation leading to decreased neurotoxicity are discussed below.

In the case of HSV, a number of mutants were created by modifying the virus to reduce neurovirulence without affecting the virus’s ability to infect actively dividing cells (63). For example, HSV-1716 and R3616 mutants have deletions in both copies of the viral γ₁34.5 genes, which are necessary for neurovirulence (64, 65). The neurovirulence of poliovirus is attributed to the following two aspects: 1) selective binding of CD155 receptor-expressing motor neurons and 2) an internal ribosomal entry site (IRES) sequence in the viral genome. The neurotoxic poliovirus was engineered into a neuro-attenuated virus by replacing the entire IRES with its non-pathogenic counterpart from human rhinovirus type 2 (66). Several mutants have been created to reduce the potential neurotoxicity of VSV in the treatment of glioma, studied in a rodent model (67, 68).

In this review, we will discuss 15 different virus species which are currently under study to treat gliomas. Among them, 5 are DNA viruses, while 10 are RNA viruses. Important features of these viruses have been listed in Table 1.

DNA Viruses

We have listed the current clinical trials utilizing DNA viruses against gliomas in Table 2.

Adenovirus

Adenoviruses are double-stranded-DNA viruses of the Adenoviridae family with 70–90 nm in size (88). The adenovirus has sufficient transgene capacity which can carry therapeutic genes of sizes of about 30–38 kb (69). A genetically modified variant, AdDelta24-RGD, also known as DNX-2401, has the ability to selectively infect glioma cells after either intratumoral or intracavitary (injection into the surgically created resection cavity) delivery (59).

Safety in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma has been demonstrated in phase I clinical trial (NCT00805376). In this study, an improved median overall survival has been shown in patients who received surgical resection as well as AdDelta24-RGD. Seven patients had a long-term survival of over 24 months and no Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred (59, 89). Another phase I trial demonstrated safety in patients treated with AdDelta24-RGD through convection enhanced delivery (CED), an intratumoral delivery using continuous, low–positive-pressure bulk flow to deliver drugs through the implantation of catheters (90–92). AdDelta24-RGD is currently studied as a combination therapy in multiple phase I and II studies (NCT01956734, NCT02197169, NCT02798406).

CRAd-S-pk7 is an oncolytic adenoviral vector containing a survivin promoter and a pk7 fiber modification to selectively target glioma (93). A recent study found that it could be successfully encapsulated within mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) as a new delivery strategy to treat diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG), one of the deadliest brain tumors in children (94). Another phase I clinical trial using neural stem cells (NSCs) as delivery vehicles is ongoing (NCT03072134).

High levels of chronic immune activation detected in cancer patients correlate with poor prognosis in treatment with oncolytic adenovirus. Therefore, it might be necessary to screen the immune status of patients before treatment (95, 96).

Herpes Simplex Virus

Herpes simplex virus-1 is a double-stranded, linear-DNA virus of the Herpesviridae family that has been widely adopted for OVT and most extensively studied (71). An advantage of HSV-1 is that it can incorporate multiple large transgenes within its genome. In preclinical studies, by incorporating transgenes encoding immunomodulatory molecules, such as interleukin 12 (G47Δ-mIL12), oncolytic HSV-1 has been shown to greatly enhance the efficacy of treatment in a glioblastoma model (97, 98). An HSV-1 based intralesional oncolytic immunotherapy, T-Vec, has been approved by EMA and FDA to treat unresectable melanoma in adults (99).

G207 and HSV-1716 are two HSV-1 variants with the ability to target and kill glioma cells. Phase I and II trials have investigated their safety as monotherapies and combined with radiotherapy, with no serious adverse events documented (100–102). In particular, a phase I clinical trial using G207 alone and with radiation to treat pediatric high-grade gliomas recently reported no dose-limiting toxicity or serious adverse events (103). In addition, an interleukin-12 expressing HSV-1, M032, is being evaluated for the safety and tolerability of the maximum dose in patients with recurrent gliomas in a phase I clinical trial (NCT02062827).

G47Δ is another oncolytic HSV-1 strain developed by introducing another deletion mutation to the genome of G207 (104). G47Δ has a strong induction of antitumor immunity, and it has been shown to kill cancer stem cells derived from human glioblastoma efficiently (105). G47Δ is greatly attenuated and therefore expected to be safer than G207 and T-Vec in normal tissues (105). Recently, a single-arm phase II clinical trial in Japan was completed to test the efficacy of G47Δ administered stereotactically in patients with residual or recurrent glioblastoma. Side effects were limited and the 1-year-survival rate of 13 patients has reached 92.3% (UMIN000015995) (106). Based on this phase II trial, G47Δ (Delytact/Teserpaturev) has received conditional approval from Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) as an oncolytic virotherapy for the treatment of patients with malignant glioma in Japan. This certainly represents a breakthrough for OVT in glioma and the publication of the detailed results of the Phase II trial that led to approval are eagerly awaited by the scientific community.

Parvovirus

Parvoviruses are small, single-stranded DNA viruses of the Parvoviridae family (72). One variant, H-1, is the smallest among all OVs and it has potential for intratumoral and intravenous application. It is suitable for oncolytic virotherapy of brain tumors due to its capacity to cross the BBB (14, 107, 108). It has been shown to be effective in rat and human GBM cell lines (14). Besides, it has been shown to increase DC cross-presentation of tumor antigens in a melanoma cell line, demonstrating its ability to boost host immune reactivity (109). In glioblastoma patients, H-1 treatment was safe and triggered immunogenic changes in the tumor microenvironment in a phase I/II clinical trial (NCT01301430) (110).

Vaccinia Virus

Vaccinia viruses are large, enveloped, double-stranded-DNA viruses of the Poxviridae family. Strong transgene capacity (up to 40kb), efficient life cycle and selective replication in cancer cells make vaccinia viruses very promising for use as an OVT (73). Double deleted vaccinia virus (vvDD), with deletions of the thymidine kinase and vaccinia growth factor genes to enhance the safety profile, could preferentially infect and kill both Temozolomide (TMZ) resistant human brain tumor stem cells (BTSCs) and differentiated compartments of GBMs in vitro. Therefore, vvDD can be used as an effective supplement in the treatment of glioma, particularly for GBM patients resistant to TMZ (111, 112).

In a recent study, vvDD, expressing the fusion protein IL15Rα-IL15 and a fluorescent protein, was used to treat murine glioma GL261 in vitro and in vivo in combination with other treatments, including chemotherapy, peptide vaccine and adoptive T cell therapy (ACT). Pre-clinical results show potent antitumor effects against brain tumors when combined with celecoxib, rapamycin and ACT (113). To date, there are no clinical trials of VV in patients with glioma.

Myxoma Virus

Myxoma virus (MYXV) is also a double-stranded-DNA virus of the Poxviridae family (75). MYXV infects only rabbits in nature and is non-pathogenic to humans. More importantly, MYXV can preferentially infect and kill cancer cells originating from humans (75). MYXV has shown potent oncolytic activity in experimental human gliomas and produced a synergistic effect when combined with rapamycin in an immunocompetent glioma model (114, 115). It can promote natural killer (NK) cell mediated lysis of malignant gliomas both in vitro and in vivo (116).

MYXV could infect and kill both TMZ-resistant and -sensitive brain tumor-initiating cells (BTICs), which retained stem-cell-like properties (117). Anti-apoptotic M011L-deficient MYXV induced apoptosis in BTICs and prolonged animal survival in an immunocompetent glioblastoma model (118). Multiple compounds, e.g. axitinib, that synergize with oncolytic MYXV against human BTICs were identified (119). In immunocompetent animal models of glioma, MYXV armed with IL15Rα-247 has been shown to be a safe and powerful agent against brain tumors when combined with other immunotherapeutic methods (120). To date, there are no clinical trials of MYXV in patients with glioma.

RNA Viruses

We have listed the current clinical trials utilizing RNA viruses against gliomas in Table 3.

Reovirus

Reovirus is a double-stranded RNA virus of the Reoviridae family and is 75–85 nm in size with an icosahedral capsid (76). Reolysin is a reovirus-based agent which has shown the ability to penetrate the BBB, with specificity and oncolytic activity for glioma cells in vitro and in vivo (15, 121). In a preclinical glioma model, reovirus can up-regulate IFN-regulated gene expression and activate PD-1/PD-L1 axis in tumors suggesting that the reovirus combined with ICIs may enhance systemic therapy (15).

In a phase I dose escalation trial, dose limiting toxicities were not identified and a maximum tolerated dose was not reached (122, 123). A current phase I study of intravenously injected reovirus combined with granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) is ongoing in pediatric patients with high-grade relapsed or refractory brain tumors (NCT02444546). Reolysin (Pelareoreop) has been granted orphan drug status by US FDA for the treatment of brain cancer (124).

Enterovirus

Poliovirus (PV) is a single-stranded, positive-sense RNA enterovirus of the Picornaviridae family and the cause of poliomyelitis (77). An attenuated poliovirus variant, PVS-RIPO, remains oncolytic but does not cause poliomyelitis and displays no neurovirulence in nonhuman primates (66, 125). It has been shown in animal models that a strong inflammatory reaction against infected glioma cells was triggered after PVS-RIPO inoculation (126, 127). In another preclinical study, PVS-RIPO improved OS in glioma-bearing mice (128).

Enterovirus A71 (EV-A71) has recently been found to have the potential to treat malignant gliomas. EV-A71 can selectively infect and kill malignant glioma cells, thus inhibiting tumor growth in mice (129).

In clinical studies, intratumoral injection of PVS-RIPO in patients with recurrent WHO grade IV malignant glioma was determined to be safe and improved OS (130). Currently, a phase Ib pediatric clinical trial is investigating the safety and dosage of PVS-RIPO by CED in high-grade gliomas as well as other brain tumors (NCT03043391). Ongoing phase II trials are also evaluating PVS-RIPO as a monotherapy or in combination therapy with pembrolizumab (NCT02986178) (NCT04479241).

Measles Virus

Measles virus (MV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus of the Paramyxoviridae family. Unlike the wild type MV strains, attenuated vaccine strains have adapted to bind CD46 receptor for target cell entry (78). Normal brain tissue expresses low-level CD46, but glioma cells express abundant CD46 receptors on their surface. CD46 mediates MV attachment, internalization and virus-induced cell-to-cell fusion, and the safety of MV has been established in nonhuman primates (131, 132).

MV-CEA is a modified MV expressing carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). CEA can serve as a marker of viral gene expression as the virus replicates. A pre-clinical study found that MV-CEA could induce brain tumor regression and improve OS in mice (133). MV-CEA could up-regulate PD-L1 in human GBM cells, and the combination with PD-1 blockade showed an increase in CD8+ TILs and improved OS in mice (134), supporting the potential of clinical combination of MV with αPD-1 therapy in GBM treatment (135). A phase I clinical trial of MV-CEA for the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme found no dose limiting toxicities with MV-CEA doses up to 2×10⁷ TCID50 (NCT00390299) (136).

Oncolytic MV encoding thyroidal sodium iodide symporter (MV-NIS) can enable in vivo tracking of MV infection and enhance therapeutic efficacy (137). Cells infected by MV-NIS can express NIS. which allows cells to actively transport iodide ions into the cells, providing a possibility for in vivo radioiodine imaging studies (138). It is possible to use NIS as a non-immunogenic marker for viral gene expression in the future. A phase I clinical trial evaluating the safety and recommended phase 2 dose of MV-NIS for the treatment of recurrent medulloblastoma or atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor (ATRT) in children and young adults is recruiting (NCT02962167).

Newcastle Disease Virus

NDV is a large, single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus of the Paramyxoviridae family (80). It has the ability to induce apoptosis of host cells via mitochondrial pathway and activate the antitumor immune response via increasing TNF-α secretion by host immune cells (80, 139). NDV can kill cancer cells through lytic viral infection as well (140). In the orthotopic, syngeneic murine GL261 glioma model, survival of treated animals was significantly prolonged with 50% long-term survival versus none in the control group. Immunogenic cell death was induced in GL261 cells after NDV infection (58).

Recombinant NDV (rNDV−p53) constructed of p53 oncolytic agent for the treatment of glioma improved the prognosis of mice with glioma due to inhibition of glioma cell growth and aggressiveness both in vitro and in vivo compared with rNDV or p53 alone. In addition, rNDV−p53 could induce apoptosis of glioma cells by upregulating apoptosis−related genes, stimulating lymphocyte infiltration and cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) responses and increasing the number of apoptotic bodies in vivo (141).

In a Phase I/II trial, intravenous delivery of the oncolytic HUJ strain of NDV (NDV-HUJ) was well tolerated in patients with recurrent glioblastoma and one patient achieved a complete response (142). Currently, there are no active clinical trials using NDV as an oncolytic agent to treat GBM.

Vesicular Stomatitis Virus

VSV is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus of the Rhabdoviridae family (81). Mild or asymptomatic infection of humans, rare and low pre-existing immunity to the virus and selective replication within cancer cells render VSV promising in OVT (143, 144). The strong neurotoxicity of VSV glycoprotein is however a major concern. A preclinical study replaced the VSV glycoprotein with the Chikungunya polyprotein E3-E2-6K-E1 to form a chimeric virus (VSVΔG-CHIKV), which appeared safe within the CNS. Furthermore, this chimeric virus could selectively infect brain tumors and prolong survival substantially in tumor-bearing mice through intracranial injection (145). Another variant, Vesicular Stomatitis Virus (VSV-ΔM51), could infect and kill both the TMZ resistant human brain tumor stem cells (BTSCs) and the differentiated compartments of GBMs in vitro (111). Recently, a novel recombinant VSV, G protein less (GLESS)-fusion-associated small transmembrane (FAST)-VSV, demonstrated antitumor effects in animal glioma models, providing the basis for clinical trials in the future (146).

Retrovirus

Retroviruses, belonging to Retroviridae family, are 100 nm in diameter containing two identical single-stranded, positive-sense RNA molecules 7–10 kilobases in length (82). TOCA 511 is an Moloney murine leukemia virus (MLV), encoding the cytosine deaminase (CD) gene to improve direct tumor cell killing via local conversion of prodrug 5-fluorocytosine (5-FC) to the active 5-fluorouracil (5-FU).

In a pre-clinical study, TOCA 511 was administered intravenously or intracranially in combination with 5-FC to treat immune-competent mice bearing glioma. Long-term survival and tolerability were observed, especially in animals with preexisting immunity to the virus, suggesting the potential for repeated administration (147).

Three Phase I clinical trial utilized TOCA 511 to treat recurrent high-grade gliomas (rHGGs) were completed (NCT01156584) (NCT01470794) (NCT01985256). In contrast to the promising results of the preclinical studies and the multiyear durable responses found in rHGGs patients in phase I clinical trials, no benefit was shown in a phase III randomized clinical study (NCT02414165) (148–150). One probable reason is that TOCA 511 is a recombinant oncolytic MLV, which can only spread efficiently in rapidly proliferating tumor cells in transplantable mouse tumors due to the short half-life of the virus in the cytoplasmic compartment, while slow proliferation is a hallmark of human cancers (151).

In a recent study, a replication competent Foamy Virus (oFV) was constructed with the ability to infect and replicate in slowly dividing tumor cells (151). This virus showed broad cancer tropism in vitro, including glioblastoma (U251).

Zika Virus

Zika virus (ZIKV) is a single-stranded, positive-sense RNA virus of the Flaviviridae family (83, 152, 153), most prominent for an outbreak in South and Central America that raised public health concerns globally, due to its potential to cause microcephaly in children of mothers infected during pregnancy (154). Irrespective of this concerning fact, ZIKV has oncolytic potential as it can cross the endothelial barrier and preferentially target glioblastoma stem cells (GSCs) (155, 156).

Preclinical findings indicate that Brazilian Zika virus strain (ZIKVBR) can selectively kill human malignant brain tumor cells (157). As it can selectively kill GSCs within the tumor, a live attenuated ZIKV vaccine candidate substantially reduced brain tumor growth and prolonged survival in vivo. Antiviral immunity, inflammation, and apoptosis of GSCs are stimulated through virus infection (158). A recent in vivo study showed that CD8+ T cells were required for ZIKV oncolytic activity and immune checkpoint inhibitors could improve the effect of OVT (159). Cytosine phosphate–guanine (CpG) recoding of Zika viral genome can reduce virus infection kinetics in nonmalignant brain cells, but retains high infectivity and oncolysis in GSCs (160).

A study using 3 dogs bearing spontaneous CNS tumors to evaluate the safety and therapeutic effect of Brazilian Zika virus (ZIKV^BR) through intrathecal injection showed shrinkage of tumor, extension of survival and improvement of clinical symptoms without negative side effect (161). Further preclinical development of ZIKA OVT is required, including determinants of ZIKA infection in tumor cells, IFN signaling as well as protein expression signatures that enable viral entry and replication (162).

M1 Virus

M1 is a positive single-strand RNA virus, belongs to Getah-like alphavirus, Togaviridae family and was isolated from Hainan province in China (85). A number of studies found that M1 has a natural tropism to tumors which can be used for oncolytic virotherapy (163–165). It has significant anticancer activity including colon, bladder and liver cancer (164). M1 is safe and nonpathogenic for nonhuman primates after multiple rounds of repeated intravenous injections (62). More importantly, M1 has the ability to infiltrate the BBB, specifically suppress malignant glioma and prolong the survival time of glioma-bearing immunocompetent mice (166).

Infection with M1 induces the unfolded protein response (UPR) and subsequent autophagy. This UPR-autophagy axis can be blocked to significantly enhance the antitumor efficacy of M1 in vitro and in vivo. Expression of IRE1, a key element in the UPR pathway, is down regulated in higher-grade gliomas, suggesting favorable antitumor activity of M1in gliomas (167). No clinical trials with M1 in glioma have been conducted to-date.

Semliki Forest Virus

Semliki Forest virus (SFV) is another single-strand, positive-sense RNA virus belonging to alphavirus genus, Togaviridae family. SFV VA7-EGFP, an avirulent SFV A7 (92) strain with replication-competent capacity, has been evaluated in vitro in three human glioma cell lines (U172, U251, U87) and in vivo in subcutaneous and orthotopic tumor models in BALB/c mice. The three glioma cell lines were effectively killed and intravenously administered SFV VA7-EGFP completely eradicated 100% of small and 50% of large subcutaneously implanted U87Fluc tumors. Moreover, long-term survival was observed in 16 of 17 animals (86, 168).

miRNA expression is cell-type restricted which can be utilized for OVT to prevent replication of OVs in healthy tissues (169). To reduce neurovirulence and to target replicating tumor cells, tissue-specific micro-RNAs (miRNAs) were incorporated into multiple alphavirus vectors (169–171). Recently, an IFN-I tolerant SFV was constructed and tested in combination with ICIs in GL261 glioma model. Increased tumor-reactive CD8+ T cell infiltration in tumor microenvironment has been observed (172). No clinical trials with SFV in glioma have been conducted to-date.

Seneca Valley Virus

Seneca Valley virus isolate 001 (SVV-001) is a single-stranded, positive-sense RNA virus belonging to Picornaviridae family. It is nonpathogenic and can selectively infect and kill tumor cells, especially tumors with neuroendocrine features (87). As for brain tumors, α2,3- and α2,6-linked sialic acids were identified as necessary for SVV-001 infection in pediatric GBM cell lines. In an immunodeficient (SCID) mouse model of pediatric GBM, intravenous injection of SVV-001 significantly prolonged survival and completely eliminated xenograft tumors without infecting any normal cells in the brain (173). No clinical trials with SVV in glioma have been conducted to-date.

Obstacles Faced by Oncolytic Virus Treatment of Gliomas

Although oncolytic virus therapy for gliomas is promising and many clinical trials are under way, there are still fundamental difficulties that need to be overcome:

• Modulating OVs-mediated host immune response

• Discerning radiographic progression from immunotherapy-induced pseudoprogression using neuroimaging;

• Finding appropriate markers for therapeutic efficacy;

• Identifying a suitable animal model;

• Overcoming existing obstacles in OVs delivery

Modulating OVs-Mediated Host Immune Responses

Pre-existing immunity was considered to be a hurdle for OVT as antibodies in peripheral blood would neutralize the virus particles and prevent OVs from reaching the tumor (174, 175). However, recent studies have shown that pre-existing immunity can actually boost the immune-mediated antitumor response, e.g., in NDV-immunized mice, anti-viral immunity to NDV improved tumor clearance, abscopal effects and mice survival, although virus replication within the tumor was limited (176). Even pre-existing immunity to other pathogens (tetanus) could be exploited to enhance the anticancer immune response triggered by oncolytic adenoviruses (177).

As for OVT induced immunity, finding a balance between the anti-tumor and anti-viral immunity remains a big challenge for viruses use as therapeutic agents. Immunosuppression can increase the distribution of the virus in the tumor, but it limits the ability of the immune system to kill the tumor. Strengthening the host’s immune system can enhance targeting of infected tumor cells, but it also limits the virus` distribution in the tumor site (178). An alternative strategy to prevent the injected OVs from clearance before they reach the target tissue are cell-based delivery platforms. These delivery platforms can provide shelter from the host immune response without suppression of the anti-tumor immune-response (94, 179, 180).

Attenuation is a viable strategy to avoid the toxicity of OVs and hyper activation of the host´s immune system. For example, the problem of high virulence and strong immunogenicity of ZIKV has been solved by creating a genetically modified attenuated vaccine variant of the virus that has low virulence and reduced immunogenicity but retains viral oncolytic activity against GBM (158).

Innate antiviral immunity is not just a hurdle for the efficacy of oncolytic viruses: type I IFNs can also play an important role in antitumor host immunity (181). In glioma, loss of type I IFN signaling promotes tumorigenesis (182). However, it is challenging to exploit enhanced type I IFN response to OV for OVT, but a number of approaches are being studied. One approach is to combine ICIs with OVT, as OVs can induce IFN release in the tumor microenvironment with upregulation of PD-L1 expression on tumor cells (70). Also, the local administration of a Semliki Forest virus encoding IL­12 (SFV-IL12) induces tumor-specific CTLs only when the host expresses IFNα/β receptor subunit 1(IFNAR1) (183, 184).

A recent study has found that stimulator of interferon genes (STING) pathway for DNA sensing has a major role in activating the adaptive immunity (by triggering type I IFN signals) against tumors, including gliomas (181, 185). Cytoplasmic DNA binding with cyclic GMP–AMP (cGAMP) synthase (cGAS), which in conjunction with STING, initiates the synthesis of type I IFN by immune cells (186). Batf3-lineage DCs respond to type I IFN, which can facilitate cross-presentation of antigens to CD8+ T cells (187, 188). In other words, STING is an important bridge between innate antiviral and adaptive antitumor immunity. It is reasonable to hypothesize that a curative therapeutic OV would be a virus that potently activates the innate immune system to trigger the antitumor adaptive immunity and resists the following antiviral response of the host (61).

There is a growing concern that OVT may be a double-edged sword with regards to tumor immunity. OVs can activate the immune system to fight the tumor through various mechanisms such as antigen-presentation, cytokine release and gene delivery. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that these mechanisms, while activating immunity, also have immunosuppressive effects. For instance, GM-CSF recruits macrophages, but whether these macrophages are present in the form of M1 or M2 remains in question (189). Also, OVs can upregulate PD-L1 expression on tumor cells via the induction of IFN release in the tumor microenvironment, enabling tumor escape from the immune system (15). Furthermore, some OVs like the vaccinia virus and VSV possess natural immune escape mechanisms, which also have dual effects on cancer treatment (190, 191). These mechanisms can prevent virus particles from neutralization, increasing replication and treatment efficacy on one hand, but at the same time they may not be able to adequately activate anti-tumor immunity on the other. Simply put, OVs activate the immune system, but they also suppress it to establish themselves. This might be the main reason that the efficacy of OVTs as monotherapies, including T-Vec, is not very satisfactory. Each OV influences a unique, heterogeneous immune microenvironment. To improve OVT further, we should find the appropriate adjuvant therapy for each oncolytic virus and enhance the therapeutic effect based on the underlying mechanisms.

Discerning Radiographic Progression From Immunotherapy-Induced Pseudoprogression Using Neuroimaging

Pseudoprogression is a big challenge in the follow-up of glioma patients that remains unsolved at present. It can be detected in 10–30% of GBM patients on their first MRI, which shows oedema and sometimes contrast enhancement after undergoing radiotherapy and concurrent TMZ in the first 12 weeks (192–194). The target lesions in these patients continue to grow on their first MRI and then become stable, shrink, or even disappear during the subsequent imaging follow-ups. In addition, pseudoprogression has also been observed in cancer patients undergoing immunotherapies (e.g. ICIs and OVT) due to the increased immune cell infiltration (195–197).

Pseudoprogression challenges the interpretation of results and decision-making in clinical trials (198). Steroids are commonly used to control oedema and increased intracranial pressure during the stage of pseudoprogression, but long-term use can cause substantial side-effects (199). Furthermore, steroids are likely negatively affecting any immunotherapeutic interventions due to their well-known immunosuppressive effects (200). The pathophysiology of pseudoprogression and the associated molecular changes have not been fully understood yet and require further studies.

At present, RECIST 1.1 is the gold standard for assessing treatment response in solid tumors including gliomas but has not fully succeeded in overcoming the challenge of pseudoprogression during immunotherapy (201). A consensus guideline, iRECIST, developed by the RECIST working group tries to address this problem (202). In addition to iRECIST, Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria also takes pseudoprogression in gliomas into consideration (203). With the development of radiologist´s expertise and further experimental tweaks, researchers are expected to overcome the problem of pseudoprogression soon (204–206).

Finding Suitable Markers for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Therapy

Currently, no validated biomarkers of OVT exist. However, some biomarkers like the components of antiviral and antitumor immune response pathways, including IFN signaling elements, cGAS–STING, retinoic acid-inducible gene I (RIG-I), melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA5), and various Toll-like receptors (TLRs) are showing great promise in OVT (207). In a recent study, impaired immunogenicity was shown in STING-knockout cancer cells after oncolytic HSV-1 infection. In immunocompetent models, STING-knockout tumors were more resistant to treatment with oncolytic HSV-1 combined with PD-1 blockade. With a partial or complete loss-of-function STING genotype, patients may not take full advantage of OVT, at least for HSV-1 (185). Therefore, STING could potentially be used as a biomarker for the screening of patients to identify those who can benefit from OVT. A logical next step is to analyze the expression of genes involved in the STING pathway in glioma patients and the effect of STING pathway in other OVTs.

In addition to cGAS/STING pathway for foreign DNA sensing, cells equipped with RIG-I/MDA5 pathway, which mainly serve for foreign RNA sensing (208). Both RIG-I and MDA5 have been observed to trigger a robust innate immune response against various tumors and effectively counteracts tumor cell heterogeneity, especially in human primary GBM (209–212). TLRs are the most widely studied pattern-recognition receptors. Targeting TLRs can have anti-tumor activity by promoting antigen presentation and activating innate and adaptive immunity (213, 214). All three, RIG-I, MDA5 and TLRs can be activated by some OVs, providing the possibility for combining agonist of these receptors with OVs (215–219). However, the combination therapy has to avoid sensitizing the patient to a cytokine shock-like response induced by IV delivery of OVs (220). Also, some receptors like TLRs are expressed on glioma cells with tumor-promoting properties, which should be taken into account when developing agonists into cancer immunotherapeutic (221).

Several other potential biomarkers are under investigation, including the number, density and localization of immune cells (NK cells, DCs, T_reg cells, CD4⁺/CD8⁺ T cells), the levels of checkpoint molecules (PD-L1, CTLA-4, LAG-3), the presence of viral antigens in tumors and other pathways like IRE1 (15, 74, 134, 167, 222, 223).

Currently, since OVT biomarkers in glioma have not been validated in clinical trials, they usually do not affect trial enrollment. OVs are not usually based on specific markers because they are not just targeting one molecule during the infection. The complex mechanism of OV makes the prospective use of a single marker insufficient to assess the therapy success.

Using OVs with knowledge of the specific mechanisms of their action will greatly benefit the OVT: appropriate markers can provide information about whether these mechanisms are working or not. More details on potential biomarkers for OVs in GBM were recently reviewed by Stavrakaki et al. (224).

Identifying a Suitable Animal Model

Clinical trials are guided by preclinical studies. Therefore, it is very important to apply the models that are most suitable for clinical research. An ideal experimental model of glioma should meet the following requirements: 1) tumor microenvironment that resembles human tumors in the brain; 2) genetic background that is similar to human gliomas; 3) a well-developed immune system that resembles human immunity; 4) intratumoral heterogeneity; 5) manipulability; 6) reproducibility; 7) cost-effectiveness; 8) ethical compliance (225). Currently, the majority of the preclinical studies for glioma include syngeneic models, xenografts models, genetically engineered models (GEMs) and resection models. Although each has different advantages and disadvantages, none of them can meet all of the above requirements (226–231).

It is worth mentioning that established glioma cell lines and primary glioma tumors (highly heterogenous) have substantial differences in both genomic alterations and gene expression, indicating that glioma cell lines may not be an ideal model system for primary gliomas (232). Until now, rodents have been commonly used for most preclinical studies, however, they are not the best models for assessing OVT. Some OVs are species-specific and unable to efficiently infect and replicate in murine cells (e.g. human specific adenoviruses) (233). Consequently, the use of xenografts may offer a solution to this problem, but the complexity of the tumor microenvironment is not reproduced. A study using Syrian hamster as an immune-competent model found that this model could support the replication of both human-adenovirus and vaccinia virus.

New glioma models are emerging that provide more opportunities for preclinical research. These models include new ways of organizing cells outside the body, such as organoids, that better mimic natural gliomas. They also include new organisms such as zebrafish, fruit flies and dogs (234–237).

Overcoming Existing Obstacles in OVs Delivery

Current delivery approaches include local delivery (intracavitary, intrathecal, and intratumoral delivery) and systemic delivery (intravascular delivery) (238).

Many OVs have been studied in patients with glioma by intracavitary or intratumoral injection, including HSV-G207, HSV-1716, adenovirus-dl1520 (ONYX-015) and reovirus. Intracavitary delivery is an established way to treat gliomas, but it has been limited by the poor penetration ability of drugs reaching only tumor cells adjacent to the surgical cavity. Therefore, intracavitary delivery usually requires a maximal surgical resection (239). Intratumoral delivery is the primary way for most oncolytic viruses in clinical trials of glioma treatment, including adenovirus, herpes simplex virus, measle virus and enterovirus (240). Studies show that intratumoral injection can not only induce tumor lysis in the injected region but also trigger systemic antitumor immunity of the whole body (59, 123). Direct injection of oncolytic viruses into tumors primes T cells specific to virus components as well as tumor cells and induces local inflammation. This inflammatory condition allows recruitment of more T cells, thus promoting recognition and destruction of tumors (241). Intratumoral delivery requires careful patient selection, and technically challenging neurosurgery, limiting repeat administration (Figure 3) (15). Another challenge is to balance the degree of local immunosuppression which is discussed in section “Modulating OVs-Mediated Host Immune Responses” CED is an intratumoral delivery using continuous, low–positive-pressure bulk flow to deliver drugs through the implantation of catheters. The difficulty of delivering repeated doses and the uncertainty in achieving meaningful drug concentrations throughout the brain makes this approach challenging (92). In the future, OVT may be based on local, image-guided delivery, which will allow direct visualization of the injection site, maximizing the availability and potential effectiveness of the OVs (242).

Figure 3

Systemic vascular delivery is becoming an option for more and more OVs. Current studies have found that several viruses, including reovirus, vaccinia virus, Newcastle disease virus, parvovirus H-1, chimeric vesicular stomatitis virus, and M1 virus are able to infect brain tumors in animal models after systemic vascular delivery (61). In addition, clinical studies demonstrated that parvovirus H-1 and reovirus can reach the brain after systemic delivery (15, 60, 110). Compared with local delivery of OVs, systemic delivery can better stimulate immune responses throughout the body, particularly in metastasis. Because of the known heterogeneity of tumor cells, it is important to stimulate antitumor responses to a wide range of tumor associated antigens (TAAs) (243). However, there are many difficulties associated with systemic delivery that have yet to be overcome (Figure 3):

• The intact BBB is able to block the passage of most viruses;

• Even if the BBB is disrupted, the host immune system outside the CNS can neutralize the viruses;

• Off target effects may lead to the infection of host tissue.

Pre-clinical studies have demonstrated that low-intensity pulsed ultrasound in combination with systemically injected microbubbles could temporarily open the BBB in a localized manner (244). This concept is currently undergoing clinical trials, and has already demonstrated safety and tolerability in patients, and therefore may provide enhanced systemic OV delivery capabilities (245, 246).

It is worth paying attention to antiviral antibodies that already exist in patients, as they can be an obstacle to the systemic delivery of the virus. Cellular carriers can protect some OVs (eg, reovirus) from neutralizing antibodies (76). However, more and more studies show that preexisting immunity to OVs can enhance their therapeutic efficacy by inducing a more robust antitumor immune response, which has been observed not only with systemic delivery, but also with local delivery (176, 247).

Recently, a peptide-delivery platform for targeting malignant brain tumor in an immunocompetent syngeneic murine GBM model was developed. The approach enhanced targeted OV delivery and therapeutic efficacy (248). It is promising that with more clinical evidence in the future, negating the requirement for repeated invasive cranial procedures, systemic delivery may provide safer and more effective access to gliomas.

There is a shared problem of both local and systemic deliveries: the heterogeneous genotype/phenotype makes the tumor microenvironment challenging for viral replication (249). Diverse levels of IFN response in tumor microenvironments due to tumor heterogeneity make tumor cells in which the antiviral pathway is functioning well, insensitive to OV (250). The combination of several oncolytic viruses, as well as the combination of OV and other immunotherapies based on a different anti-tumor mechanism, may be a viable approach to address the problem of tumor heterogeneity. Overall, multiple approaches are currently undergoing clinical trials to overcome significant difficulties in efficient OV delivery to the CNS.

Combination With Other Immunotherapies

Immunotherapy is a well-established cancer therapy. The following types of immune therapies are used in clinics for treating brain tumors: immune checkpoint inhibitors, anti-tumor vaccines, adaptive T-cell transfer and cytokines (251). Gliomas have immunosuppressive microenvironments, that limits the effectiveness of traditional immunotherapy. The infection and replication of oncolytic viruses in tumors can activate the anti-tumor immunity and turn “cold” tumors into “hot” ones (252). More and more evidence suggest that oncolytic viruses can enhance the effect of immunotherapy. In preclinical studies, many OVs launched an effective antitumor response against TMZ resistant glioma (111, 117). Also, non-overlapping mechanisms have been found between OVs and other immunotherapies (253). These findings suggest that there may be no cross-resistance to OVs and other glioma treatment.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are monoclonal antibodies that inhibit cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA4) or PD1 and its ligand PDL1 to reactivate the immune system against tumor (254). Several phase III clinical trials of ICIs for the treatment of glioblastoma are underway, including therapy with ipilimumab to block CTLA-4 and nivolumab to block PD-1 (NCT02017717, NCT02617589). However, in the treatment of patients with recurrent GBM, no significant differences in overall survival (OS) were shown when comparing nivolumab (anti-PD1) and bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) (255). Brain metastases respond better to ICI compared to primary brain tumors (NCT02320058). Probable reasons for the limited response to ICIs are: relatively low mutant load, little T cell infiltration and immunosuppressive microenvironment in GBM (10). In addition, infiltrating PD-1-expressing T cells are rare in GBM, and tumor cells rarely express PD-L1, making for a “cold” tumor microenvironment (9).

OVs can enhance the immune responses by increasing infiltration of immune cells to tumors and improve the efficacy of ICIs, thus reconditioning the tumor microenvironment and transforming a “cold” tumor microenvironment into a “hot” one (52, 252). Studies suggest that OVs can be used to prime the immune response initially to create a ‘hot’ tumor microenvironment and make brain tumors sensitive to subsequent ICIs treatment (15, 256). Moreover, OVs can upregulate PD-L1 expression on tumor cells via the induction of IFN release into the tumor microenvironment, thus improving the therapeutic response to ICIs (15). Also, OVs can be engineered to express PD-L1 inhibitors, which can activate tumor neoantigen-specific T cell responses (257). In an immunocompetent mouse model of glioma, OVs combined with ICI have shown promising results. Among these viruses in combination with anti-PD-1 were tested adenovirus Delta-24-RGDOX, HSV (G47D-mIL12), VSV, reovirus, and measles virus (134, 258–260).

Of note, a multi-institution randomized clinical trial using neoadjuvant anti-PD-1 immunotherapy for the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma has shown positive results. The trial was conducted by The Ivy Foundation Early Phase Clinical Trials Consortium. OS was significantly longer for neoadjuvant plus adjuvant pembrolizumab compared to adjuvant pembrolizumab alone. Interferon- and T cell-related gene expression was upregulated while cell cycle-related gene expression was downregulated within the tumor only in the neoadjuvant group (261). All these findings suggest that scheduling of ICI and OV therapy might be of major advantage and should be explored in future trials. Overall, ICIs are the most promising therapy for combination with oncolytic viruses. Since ICIs can affect OV-induced antiviral and antitumor immunity, further studies of the immune responses triggered by these agents could significantly contribute to the development of OV plus ICI combination therapy (61).

Cancer Vaccines

There are several types of cancer vaccines, including cell-based, protein, peptide, and genetic vaccines (249). Cancer vaccines against brain tumors have broad application potential. However, most tumor vaccines fail to recruit sufficient T helper cells and display reduced MHC II epitope on DC surfaces, thus lacking support to the enhancement of antitumor T-cell immunity (262, 263). The search for an optimal strategy for the use of antitumor vaccines to enhance antitumor T-cell immunity is the main direction of research in this area. The combination of vaccines with oncolytic viruses is a promising therapeutic approach, since T-cell immunity can be further improved with virotherapy (264).

Dendritic Cell Vaccines

In phase I and II trials, DC vaccines increased cytokine production in patients with gliomas after treatment and improved survival (265). The most advanced DC vaccine currently in clinical trials is ICT-107, which has been shown to be safe and effective. In a phase II study of 124 patients with brain tumors, compared with a control group, ICT-107 significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) while maintaining QoL (quality of life) (266, 267). To maximize the immunogenicity of DCs, the focus is on optimizing the culturing conditions for DC generation in vitro (268). Additionally, preclinical studies have shown that oncolytic HSV-1 in combination with immature myeloid dendritic cells (iDCs) can reduce tumor volume and prolong survival by enhancing antitumor immunity in murine malignancies. OVs have the potential to enhance the therapeutic effects of cancer vaccines in combination therapy (269–273).

Peptide Vaccines

A specific tumor antigen that can be targeted by peptide vaccines can be represented by the following genes EGFRvIII, IDHR132H, Wilms tumor 1 (WT1) and survivin. In a phase II trials, a peptide vaccine targeting EGFRvIII improved survival in glioblastoma substantially, but the effect could not be replicated in a randomized phase III trial (8, 274). In a non-randomized trial, another peptide vaccine against WT1 improved the survival of patients with glioblastoma by stimulating the anti- WT1 IgG responses (275). Further, in a preclinical study, synthetic long peptides (SLPs) combined with oncolytic Maraba virus (MG1-E6E7) showed a significant anti-tumor effect against advanced HPV positive neoplasia. MG1-E6E7 expresses a tetravalent transgene, which is based on attenuated viral oncogenes E6 and E7 from HPV16 and 18. HPV-associated cancers may become an attractive target for peptide vaccination through the expression of these transforming viral oncogenes. MG1-E6E7 substantially enhanced the specific CD8+ immune responses induced by SLP vaccination (276). It is expected that the combination with OV will soon be tested on gliomas. However, antigenic loss is a substantial obstacle to single-peptide vaccinations. For example, several studies have shown that most patients gradually lost EGFRvIII expression after treatment, leading to tumor recurrence (274). Therefore, multi-peptide vaccines may be required to target glioma variable antigens to improve treatment efficacy (277, 278).

Recently, phase I clinical trials of glioblastoma have shown that neoantigens vaccines can induce intratumoral T-cell responses (279). This could represent an interesting alternative approach to improve the effectiveness of OVT treatment in glioma.

Adoptive Cell Therapy

ACT holds considerable promise for the treatment of brain tumors. T cells are extracted from patients, cultured and proliferated in vitro to improve their ability to recognize and kill tumor cells, and then injected into patients. ACT includes tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and genetically engineered T cells. TILs have been reported to induce regressions in some tumor types, but it is difficult to isolate and expand TILs from the CNS (18). The administration of autologous CMV- specific T cells offer a new way to treat brain tumors (280). However, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells therapy for brain tumors still faces significant challenges, such as heterogeneity of target antigens in tumor cells, induction of compensatory immunosuppressive response in the brain and failure to recruit infused T cells into brain tumors (281–284). Better strategies are needed to assist T cells in efficient infiltration, overcoming the immunosuppressive GBM microenvironment and handling the immune-related complications associated with ACT (10).

Combination with emerging OVs offers massive opportunities for ACT to overcome these obstacles. OVs can assist in the recruitment and activation of selected or engineered T cells in the tumor bed (285). Also, OVs can up-regulate the expression of MHC class I molecules by tumor cells, which can improve the targeting of ACT to tumor-specific antigens (286). In murine neuroblastoma models, arming adenovirus with the chemokine like CCL5/RANTES and the cytokine IL-15 not only preserved their oncolytic effects but also enhanced the migration and proliferation of the tumor- associated ganglioside GD2 CAR T cells, thereby increasing overall survival (287, 288).

Unexpectedly, another pre-clinical study demonstrated that OV-associated type I IFN response has negative effect on CAR T cell therapy (289). The inflammatory environment generated by the oncolytic viruses and the remodeling of the tumor microenvironment neither helped in recruiting CAR T cells nor enhanced their functionality. The concentration of type I IFN in the tumor was inversely correlated with the number of the CAR T cells. Furthermore, IFNAR1 knock out CAR T cells showed resistance to the negative effects caused by OVs in the setting of lymphodepletion or NK cell depletion. A solution may be to limit the type I IFN signaling associated with an OV or making CAR T cells insensitive to type I IFN. Serving as soluble type I IFN decoy receptor, the expression of B18R gene in vaccinia virus may improve the combination of oncolytic vaccinia virus with CAR T cells in a TC1-mesothelin model (289, 290). Negative effects on ACT efficacy are not the only effects of type 1 IFN that can be caused by OV in tumor. There may be other effects as well. The key role of type I IFN in tumors should be considered more broadly with OV re-dosing when the endogenous T cell compartment may be depleted. For the time being, there are few experimental studies on the combination of ACT with oncolytic viruses in gliomas. However, these studies show that the combined approaches of OV and CAR T cells are promising for the treatment of brain tumors.

Immunotherapeutic Modulators

Multiple OVs have been armed with different anti-tumor cytokines to activate the tumor microenvironment and enhance anti-tumor immunity induced by OVs (98).

IL-12 can produce multifaceted anti-tumor effects but has been shown to have serious adverse effects when administered intravenously (291, 292). Recent studies found that OVs can limit the systemic toxicity of IL-12 by expressing IL-12 locally in the tumors as well as in the brains of non-human primates (293, 294). In a murine GSC model, oncolytic HSV-1 encoding IL-12 (HSV-1-IL-12) replicated in GSCs in vitro and enhanced survival of syngeneic mice bearing GSC-derived tumors in vivo. Furthermore, HSV-1-IL-12 can activate anti-tumor immune response through increasing IFN-γ release and reducing the number of regulatory T cells in the tumor (98). At present, in a phase I clinical trial, an engineered HSV-1 expressing IL-12, to treat recurrent glioma is recruiting volunteers (NCT02062827).

The gene for granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) has been used in several OV constructs. GM-CSF enhances the activation of NK cells and CD8-mediated T cell response downstream in OVT by promoting maturation of monocytes in DCs and improving the DC’s ability to present antigens (295, 296). Many other constructs are also being investigated, including HSV-1-IL-4, VACV-CCL5, VSV-IFNg and VSV-IL-15, ADV-IL-15 (259, 270, 297–301). There is no doubt that OVs encoding immunotherapeutic modulators for the treatment of malignant gliomas will become more and more popular in clinical studies.

Future Directions

Because of the complex interactions between the tumor and its host, gliomas remain lethal and conventional therapies have improved little in recent years. Gliomas are heterogeneous tumors and tend to be difficult to target for immunotherapy since they contain few mutations (18). Immunotherapy can only be successful if its effect reaches the brain and overcomes the difficulties associated with tumor heterogeneity and tumor targeting. The most significant result of OVT clinical trials is that this therapy is well tolerated by patients with glioma and has relatively rare serious side effects. Overall, OVT offers a selective, innovative and safe approach to treating glioma (44). Furthermore, antigen-specific T cells in gliomas display an exhausted phenotype (302, 303). OVs have the potential to change the phenotype of T cells from exhausted to activated type and provide more possibilities for the combination of an oncolytic virus with other immunotherapies (59). However, the mechanisms of interaction between tumor, host and OVs in brain tumor microenvironments have not been fully elucidated. Further study is needed to maximize the efficacy of OVs.

As discussed in section “Modulating OVs-Mediated Host Immune Responses”, OVT may be a double-edged sword because OVs can not only activate the immune system but also suppress it to establish themselves. Different viruses can create different tumor microenvironments. Therefore, in the future, improving OVT by finding the appropriate adjuvant therapy for each OV and enhancing the therapeutic effect considering the underlying mechanisms should be the norm. In principle, two ways can be used to achieve this: combination therapy and arming the OV with adjuvant factors.

At the same time, personalized therapeutic approaches are becoming feasible for OVT. An ideal combination of appropriate viruses could be chosen according to the type, stage and biomarker expression of glioma. The success of oncolytic virotherapy may not only require careful screening of patients based on different mutations and protein expression in their tumors, but also require the selection of suitable OVs for a particular tumor. An ex vivo 3D tumor model generated from fresh tissue provides a culture condition that supports further researches into the dynamics of viral infection and the interaction with local immune system in the specific tumor microenvironment (304). With application of this system, it is possible to screen multiple OVs for a specific patient and establish the optimal OVT (224). Undoubtedly, identifying the optimal dosing, route of administration and schedule in OVs treatment requires further investigation. The sequence of application of different agents involving OVs is still under investigation. Well-designed clinical trials will pave the way for suitable, effective, and precise OV glioma treatments in the future.

Approaches are being developed that combine oncolytic virotherapy and many other types of immunotherapies. As two or more agents are combined, there is always a concern about the increased overall toxicity. Therefore, it is important to find more synergistic combination therapy modalities and to further understand the mechanisms of each therapy and clinical effects on immune response (305). Currently, more and more combinatorial clinical studies are under way, which undoubtedly indicates that the application of oncolytic viruses in glioma has great prospects (Tables 2, 3).

Conclusions

The development of OV for the treatment of gliomas has been going on for over two decades, and the potential of this therapy is being recognized in an increasing number of studies. As a special immunotherapy, OVT can not only kill gliomas directly, but can also activate the body’s effective anti-tumor immunity, which can cause a synergistic effect with other immunotherapeutic methods. However, much remains to be learned about OVT and combination therapy, including the mechanisms that mediate the immunosuppressive microenvironment of brain tumors, optimal OVs intratumoral delivery, selection of most appropriate OVs and immune targets for different tumors, and molecular markers for prediction of therapeutic efficacy. The approval of G47Δ (Delytact/Teserpaturev) for the treatment of glioma in Japan, although time-limited and conditional, is the culmination of decades of OVT research in glioma. Undoubtedly, oncolytic viro-immunotherapy of gliomas has great prospects and, in the future, will have a great impact on cancer therapy.

Funding

This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 81973347), Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (grant number 2019A1515011564) and Pearl River S&T Nova Program of Guangzhou (grant number 201906010069).

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

• 1

  WellerMWickWAldapeKBradaMBergerMPfisterSMet al. Glioma. Nat Rev Dis Primers (2015) 1:15017. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2015.17

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  LeeDYGianinoSMGutmannDH. Innate Neural Stem Cell Heterogeneity Determines the Patterning of Glioma Formation in Children. Cancer Cell (2012) 22(1):131–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2012.05.036

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  BrayFFerlayJSoerjomataramISiegelRLTorreLAJemalA. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin (2018) 68(6):394–424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  MolinaroAMTaylorJWWienckeJKWrenschMR. Genetic and Molecular Epidemiology of Adult Diffuse Glioma. Nat Rev Neurol (2019) 15(7):405–17. doi: 10.1038/s41582-019-0220-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  LouisDNPerryAReifenbergerGvon DeimlingAFigarella-BrangerDCaveneeWKet al. The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: A Summary. Acta Neuropathol (2016) 131(6):803–20. doi: 10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  LapointeSPerryAButowskiNA. Primary Brain Tumours in Adults. Lancet (2018) 392(10145):432–46. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30990-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  GittlemanHCioffiGVecchione-KovalTOstromQTKruchkoCOsorioDSet al. Descriptive Epidemiology of Germ Cell Tumors of the Central Nervous System Diagnosed in the United States From 2006 to 2015. J Neurooncol (2019) 143(2):251–60. doi: 10.1007/s11060-019-03173-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  WellerMButowskiNTranDDRechtLDLimMHirteHet al. Rindopepimut With Temozolomide for Patients With Newly Diagnosed, EGFRvIII-Expressing Glioblastoma (ACT IV): A Randomised, Double-Blind, International Phase 3 Trial. Lancet Oncol (2017) 18(10):1373–85. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30517-X

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  BuerkiRAChhedaZSOkadaH. Immunotherapy of Primary Brain Tumors: Facts and Hopes. Clin Cancer Res (2018) 24(21):5198–205. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-2769

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  WangJShenFYaoYWangLLZhuYHuJ. Adoptive Cell Therapy: A Novel and Potential Immunotherapy for Glioblastoma. Front Oncol (2020) 10:59. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00059

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  YangY. Cancer Immunotherapy: Harnessing the Immune System to Battle Cancer. J Clin Invest (2015) 125(9):3335–7. doi: 10.1172/JCI83871

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  FilleyACHenriquezMDeyM. CART Immunotherapy: Development, Success, and Translation to Malignant Gliomas and Other Solid Tumors. Front Oncol (2018) 8:453. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2018.00453

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  BilusicMMadanRAGulleyJL. Immunotherapy of Prostate Cancer: Facts and Hopes. Clin Cancer Res (2017) 23(22):6764–70. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0019

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  GeletnekyKKiprianovaIAyacheAKochRHerreroYCMDeleuLet al. Regression of Advanced Rat and Human Gliomas by Local or Systemic Treatment With Oncolytic Parvovirus H-1 in Rat Models. Neuro Oncol (2010) 12(8):804–14. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noq023

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  SamsonAScottKJTaggartDWestEJWilsonENuovoGJet al. Intravenous Delivery of Oncolytic Reovirus to Brain Tumor Patients Immunologically Primes for Subsequent Checkpoint Blockade. Sci Transl Med (2018) 10(422):eaam7577. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aam7577

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  MiyauchiJTTsirkaSE. Advances in Immunotherapeutic Research for Glioma Therapy. J Neurol (2018) 265(4):741–56. doi: 10.1007/s00415-017-8695-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  SchlagerCKornerHKruegerMVidoliSHaberlMMielkeDet al. Effector T-Cell Trafficking Between the Leptomeninges and the Cerebrospinal Fluid. Nature (2016) 530(7590):349–53. doi: 10.1038/nature16939

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  SampsonJHGunnMDFecciPEAshleyDM. Brain Immunology and Immunotherapy in Brain Tumours. Nat Rev Cancer (2020) 20(1):12–25. doi: 10.1038/s41568-019-0224-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  AjamiBBennettJLKriegerCMcNagnyKMRossiFM. Infiltrating Monocytes Trigger EAE Progression, But do Not Contribute to the Resident Microglia Pool. Nat Neurosci (2011) 14(9):1142–9. doi: 10.1038/nn.2887

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  MonierAAdle-BiassetteHDelezoideALEvrardPGressensPVerneyC. Entry and Distribution of Microglial Cells in Human Embryonic and Fetal Cerebral Cortex. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol (2007) 66(5):372–82. doi: 10.1097/nen.0b013e3180517b46

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  WangCYueHHuZShenYMaJLiJet al. Microglia Mediate Forgetting via Complement-Dependent Synaptic Elimination. Science (2020) 367(6478):688–94. doi: 10.1126/science.aaz2288

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  ShiQChowdhurySMaRLeKXHongSCaldaroneBJet al. Complement C3 Deficiency Protects Against Neurodegeneration in Aged Plaque-Rich APP/PS1 Mice. Sci Transl Med (2017) 9(392):eaaf6295. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf6295

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  HambardzumyanDGutmannDHKettenmannH. The Role of Microglia and Macrophages in Glioma Maintenance and Progression. Nat Neurosci (2016) 19(1):20–7. doi: 10.1038/nn.4185

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  MarkovicDSGlassRSynowitzMRooijenNKettenmannH. Microglia Stimulate the Invasiveness of Glioma Cells by Increasing the Activity of Metalloprotease-2. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol (2005) 64(9):754–62. doi: 10.1097/01.jnen.0000178445.33972.a9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  ShenXBurguillosMAOsmanAMFrijhoffJCarrillo-JimenezAKanataniSet al. Glioma-Induced Inhibition of Caspase-3 in Microglia Promotes a Tumor-Supportive Phenotype. Nat Immunol (2016) 17(11):1282–90. doi: 10.1038/ni.3545

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  ZhangJSarkarSCuaRZhouYHaderWYongVWet al. and Microglia That Promotes Tumor Invasiveness Through the CCL2/CCR2/interleukin-6 Axis. Carcinogenesis (2012) 33(2):312–9. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgr289

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  ChangALMiskaJWainwrightDADeyMRivettaCVYuDet al. CCL2 Produced by the Glioma Microenvironment Is Essential for the Recruitment of Regulatory T Cells and Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells. Cancer Res (2016) 76(19):5671–82. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-0144

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  PyonteckSMAkkariLSchuhmacherAJBowmanRLSevenichLQuailDFet al. CSF-1R Inhibition Alters Macrophage Polarization and Blocks Glioma Progression. Nat Med (2013) 19(10):1264–72. doi: 10.1038/nm.3337

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  ZhuCKrosJMChengCMustafaD. The Contribution of Tumor-Associated Macrophages in Glioma Neo-Angiogenesis and Implications for Anti-Angiogenic Strategies. Neuro Oncol (2017) 19(11):1435–46. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/nox081

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  AkkariLBowmanRLTessierJKlemmFHandgraafSMde GrootMet al. Dynamic Changes in Glioma Macrophage Populations After Radiotherapy Reveal CSF-1R Inhibition as a Strategy to Overcome Resistance. Sci Transl Med (2020) 12(552):eaaw7843. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaw7843

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  PoonCCSarkarSYongVWKellyJJP. Glioblastoma-Associated Microglia and Macrophages: Targets for Therapies to Improve Prognosis. Brain (2017) 140(6):1548–60. doi: 10.1093/brain/aww355

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  WolburgHNoellSFallier-BeckerPMackAFWolburg-BuchholzK. The Disturbed Blood-Brain Barrier in Human Glioblastoma. Mol Aspects Med (2012) 33(5-6):579–89. doi: 10.1016/j.mam.2012.02.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  SchneiderSWLudwigTTatenhorstLBrauneSOberleithnerHSennerVet al. Glioblastoma Cells Release Factors That Disrupt Blood-Brain Barrier Features. Acta Neuropathol (2004) 107(3):272–6. doi: 10.1007/s00401-003-0810-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  ChongsathidkietPJacksonCKoyamaSLoebelFCuiXFarberSHet al. Sequestration of T Cells in Bone Marrow in the Setting of Glioblastoma and Other Intracranial Tumors. Nat Med (2018) 24(9):1459–68. doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0135-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  SchwabSRPereiraJPMatloubianMXuYHuangYCysterJG. Lymphocyte Sequestration Through S1P Lyase Inhibition and Disruption of S1P Gradients. Science (2005) 309(5741):1735–9. doi: 10.1126/science.1113640

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  PerngPLimM. Immunosuppressive Mechanisms of Malignant Gliomas: Parallels at Non-CNS Sites. Front Oncol (2015) 5:153. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2015.00153

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  VitkovicLMaedaSSternbergE. Anti-Inflammatory Cytokines: Expression and Action in the Brain. Neuroimmunomodulation (2001) 9(6):295–312. doi: 10.1159/000059387

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  GongDShiWYiSJChenHGroffenJHeisterkampN. TGFbeta Signaling Plays a Critical Role in Promoting Alternative Macrophage Activation. BMC Immunol (2012) 13:31. doi: 10.1186/1471-2172-13-31

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  WainwrightDABalyasnikovaIVChangALAhmedAUMoonKSAuffingerBet al. IDO Expression in Brain Tumors Increases the Recruitment of Regulatory T Cells and Negatively Impacts Survival. Clin Cancer Res (2012) 18(22):6110–21. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-2130

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  ZhangIAlizadehDLiangJZhangLGaoHSongYet al. Characterization of Arginase Expression in Glioma-Associated Microglia and Macrophages. PloS One (2016) 11(12):e0165118. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165118

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  MiretJJKirschmeierPKoyamaSZhuMLiYYNaitoYet al. Suppression of Myeloid Cell Arginase Activity Leads to Therapeutic Response in a NSCLC Mouse Model by Activating Anti-Tumor Immunity. J Immunother Cancer (2019) 7(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s40425-019-0504-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  WangZZhangCLiuXWangZSunLLiGet al. Molecular and Clinical Characterization of PD-L1 Expression at Transcriptional Level via 976 Samples of Brain Glioma. Oncoimmunology (2016) 5(11):e1196310. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2016.1196310

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  AndtbackaRHKaufmanHLCollichioFAmatrudaTSenzerNChesneyJet al. Talimogene Laherparepvec Improves Durable Response Rate in Patients With Advanced Melanoma. J Clin Oncol (2015) 33(25):2780–8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.58.3377

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  ForemanPMFriedmanGKCassadyKAMarkertJM. Oncolytic Virotherapy for the Treatment of Malignant Glioma. Neurotherapeutics (2017) 14(2):333–44. doi: 10.1007/s13311-017-0516-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  AdairRARoulstoneVScottKJMorganRNuovoGJFullerMet al. Cell Carriage, Delivery, and Selective Replication of an Oncolytic Virus in Tumor in Patients. Sci Transl Med (2012) 4(138):138ra77. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3003578

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  StojdlDFLichtyBKnowlesSMariusRAtkinsHSonenbergNet al. Exploiting Tumor-Specific Defects in the Interferon Pathway With a Previously Unknown Oncolytic Virus. Nat Med (2000) 6(7):821–5. doi: 10.1038/77558

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  ShiTSongXWangYLiuFWeiJ. Combining Oncolytic Viruses With Cancer Immunotherapy: Establishing a New Generation of Cancer Treatment. Front Immunol (2020) 11:683. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00683

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  SahaDWakimotoHRabkinSD. Oncolytic Herpes Simplex Virus Interactions With the Host Immune System. Curr Opin Virol (2016) 21:26–34. doi: 10.1016/j.coviro.2016.07.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  KanervaANokisalmiPDiaconuIKoskiACerulloVLiikanenIet al. Antiviral and Antitumor T-Cell Immunity in Patients Treated With GM-CSF-Coding Oncolytic Adenovirus. Clin Cancer Res (2013) 19(10):2734–44. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-2546

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  CaiJLinYZhangHLiangJTanYCaveneeWKet al. Selective Replication of Oncolytic Virus M1 Results in a Bystander Killing Effect That is Potentiated by Smac Mimetics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2017) 114(26):6812–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1701002114

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  LoyaSMZhangX. Enhancing the Bystander Killing Effect of an Oncolytic HSV by Arming it With a Secretable Apoptosis Activator. Gene Ther (2015) 22(3):237–46. doi: 10.1038/gt.2014.113

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  GujarSPolJGKroemerG. Heating it Up: Oncolytic Viruses Make Tumors ‘Hot’ and Suitable for Checkpoint Blockade Immunotherapies. Oncoimmunology (2018) 7(8):e1442169. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2018.1442169

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  AlvaradoAGThiagarajanPSMulkearns-HubertEESilverDJHaleJSAlbanTJet al. Glioblastoma Cancer Stem Cells Evade Innate Immune Suppression of Self-Renewal Through Reduced TLR4 Expression. Cell Stem Cell (2017) 20(4):450–61.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2016.12.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  ZhanXGuoSLiYRanHHuangHMiLet al. Glioma Stem-Like Cells Evade Interferon Suppression Through MBD3/NuRD Complex-Mediated STAT1 Downregulation. J Exp Med (2020) 217(5):e20191340. doi: 10.1084/jem.20191340

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  MaxwellRLuksikASGarzon-MuvdiTLimM. The Potential of Cellular- and Viral-Based Immunotherapies for Malignant Glioma-Dendritic Cell Vaccines, Adoptive Cell Transfer, and Oncolytic Viruses. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep (2017) 17(6):50. doi: 10.1007/s11910-017-0754-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  WollmannGOzdumanKvan den PolAN. Oncolytic Virus Therapy for Glioblastoma Multiforme: Concepts and Candidates. Cancer J (2012) 18(1):69–81. doi: 10.1097/PPO.0b013e31824671c9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  JiangHClise-DwyerKRuisaardKEFanXTianWGuminJet al. Delta-24-RGD Oncolytic Adenovirus Elicits Anti-Glioma Immunity in an Immunocompetent Mouse Model. PloS One (2014) 9(5):e97407. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097407

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  KoksCAGargADEhrhardtMRivaMVandenberkLBoonLet al. Newcastle Disease Virotherapy Induces Long-Term Survival and Tumor-Specific Immune Memory in Orthotopic Glioma Through the Induction of Immunogenic Cell Death. Int J Cancer (2015) 136(5):E313–25. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29202

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  LangFFConradCGomez-ManzanoCYungWKASawayaRWeinbergJSet al. Phase I Study of DNX-2401 (Delta-24-RGD) Oncolytic Adenovirus: Replication and Immunotherapeutic Effects in Recurrent Malignant Glioma. J Clin Oncol (2018) 36(14):1419–27. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.8219

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  AngelovaALBarfMGeletnekyKUnterbergARommelaereJ. Immunotherapeutic Potential of Oncolytic H-1 Parvovirus: Hints of Glioblastoma Microenvironment Conversion Towards Immunogenicity. Viruses (2017) 9(12):382. doi: 10.3390/v9120382

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  MartikainenMEssandM. Virus-Based Immunotherapy of Glioblastoma. Cancers (Basel) (2019) 11(2):186. doi: 10.3390/cancers11020186

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  ZhangHLinYLiKLiangJXiaoXCaiJet al. Naturally Existing Oncolytic Virus M1 Is Nonpathogenic for the Nonhuman Primates After Multiple Rounds of Repeated Intravenous Injections. Hum Gene Ther (2016) 27(9):700–11. doi: 10.1089/hum.2016.038

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  FarassatiFYangADLeePW. Oncogenes in Ras Signalling Pathway Dictate Host-Cell Permissiveness to Herpes Simplex Virus 1. Nat Cell Biol (2001) 3(8):745–50. doi: 10.1038/35087061

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  ChouJKernERWhitleyRJRoizmanB. Mapping of Herpes Simplex Virus-1 Neurovirulence to Gamma 134.5, a Gene Nonessential for Growth in Culture. Science (1990) 250(4985):1262–6. doi: 10.1126/science.2173860

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  MacLeanARul-FareedMRobertsonLHarlandJBrownSM. Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 Deletion Variants 1714 and 1716 Pinpoint Neurovirulence-Related Sequences in Glasgow Strain 17+ Between Immediate Early Gene 1 and the ‘A’ Sequence. J Gen Virol (1991) 72(Pt 3):631–9. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-72-3-631

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  GromeierMAlexanderLWimmerE. Internal Ribosomal Entry Site Substitution Eliminates Neurovirulence in Intergeneric Poliovirus Recombinants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (1996) 93(6):2370–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.6.2370

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  van den PolANDaltonKPRoseJK. Relative Neurotropism of a Recombinant Rhabdovirus Expressing a Green Fluorescent Envelope Glycoprotein. J Virol (2002) 76(3):1309–27. doi: 10.1128/jvi.76.3.1309-1327.2002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  WollmannGRogulinVSimonIRoseJKvan den PolAN. Some Attenuated Variants of Vesicular Stomatitis Virus Show Enhanced Oncolytic Activity Against Human Glioblastoma Cells Relative to Normal Brain Cells. J Virol (2010) 84(3):1563–73. doi: 10.1128/JVI.02040-09

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  AbudoureyimuMLaiYTianCWangTWangRChuX. Oncolytic Adenovirus-A Nova for Gene-Targeted Oncolytic Viral Therapy in HCC. Front Oncol (2019) 9:1182. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01182

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  KaufmanHLKohlhappFJZlozaA. Oncolytic Viruses: A New Class of Immunotherapy Drugs. Nat Rev Drug Discov (2016) 15(9):660. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2016.178

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  AdvaniSJMarkertJMSoodRFSamuelSGillespieGYShaoMYet al. Increased Oncolytic Efficacy for High-Grade Gliomas by Optimal Integration of Ionizing Radiation Into the Replicative Cycle of HSV-1. Gene Ther (2011) 18(11):1098–102. doi: 10.1038/gt.2011.61

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  MarchiniABonifatiSScottEMAngelovaALRommelaereJ. Oncolytic Parvoviruses: From Basic Virology to Clinical Applications. Virol J (2015) 12:6. doi: 10.1186/s12985-014-0223-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  GuoZSLuBGuoZGiehlEFeistMDaiEet al. Vaccinia Virus-Mediated Cancer Immunotherapy: Cancer Vaccines and Oncolytics. J Immunother Cancer (2019) 7(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s40425-018-0495-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  BommareddyPKShettigarMKaufmanHL. Integrating Oncolytic Viruses in Combination Cancer Immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol (2018) 18(8):498–513. doi: 10.1038/s41577-018-0014-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  RahmanMMMcFaddenG. Oncolytic Virotherapy With Myxoma Virus. J Clin Med (2020) 9(1):171. doi: 10.3390/jcm9010171

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  IlettEJPrestwichRJKottkeTErringtonFThompsonJMHarringtonKJet al. Dendritic Cells and T Cells Deliver Oncolytic Reovirus for Tumour Killing Despite Pre-Existing Anti-Viral Immunity. Gene Ther (2009) 16(5):689–99. doi: 10.1038/gt.2009.29

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  KorotkovaEAProstovaMAGmylAPKozlovskayaLIEremeevaTPBaikovaOYet al. Case of Poliomyelitis Caused by Significantly Diverged Derivative of the Poliovirus Type 3 Vaccine Sabin Strain Circulating in the Orphanage. Viruses (2020) 12(9):970. doi: 10.3390/v12090970

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  HsuECSarangiFIorioCSidhuMSUdemSADillehayDLet al. A Single Amino Acid Change in the Hemagglutinin Protein of Measles Virus Determines its Ability to Bind CD46 and Reveals Another Receptor on Marmoset B Cells. J Virol (1998) 72(4):2905–16. doi: 10.1128/JVI.72.4.2905-2916.1998

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  LundstromK. RNA Viruses as Tools in Gene Therapy and Vaccine Development. Genes (Basel) (2019) 10(3):189. doi: 10.3390/genes10030189

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  BurmanBPesciGZamarinD. Newcastle Disease Virus at the Forefront of Cancer Immunotherapy. Cancers (Basel) (2020) 12(12):3552. doi: 10.3390/cancers12123552

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  PatilGXuLWuYSongKHaoWHuaFet al. TRIM41-Mediated Ubiquitination of Nucleoprotein Limits Vesicular Stomatitis Virus Infection. Viruses (2020) 12(2):131. doi: 10.3390/v12020131

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  NermutMVHockleyDJ. Comparative Morphology and Structural Classification of Retroviruses. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol (1996) 214:1–24. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-80145-7_1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  FayeOFreireCCIamarinoAFayeOde OliveiraJVDialloMet al. Molecular Evolution of Zika Virus During its Emergence in the 20(Th) Century. PloS Negl Trop Dis (2014) 8(1):e2636. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002636

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  ToAMedinaLOMfuhKOLiebermanMMWongTASNamekarMet al. Recombinant Zika Virus Subunits Are Immunogenic and Efficacious in Mice. mSphere (2018) 3(1):e00576–17. doi: 10.1128/mSphere.00576-17

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  WenJSZhaoWZLiuJWZhouHTaoJPYanHJet al. Genomic Analysis of a Chinese Isolate of Getah-Like Virus and Its Phylogenetic Relationship With Other Alphaviruses. Virus Genes (2007) 35(3):597–603. doi: 10.1007/s11262-007-0110-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  LundstromK. Oncolytic Alphaviruses in Cancer Immunotherapy. Vaccines (Basel) (2017) 5(2):9. doi: 10.3390/vaccines5020009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  BurkeMJ. Oncolytic Seneca Valley Virus: Past Perspectives and Future Directions. Oncolytic Virother (2016) 5:81–9. doi: 10.2147/OV.S96915

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  HuangHLiuYLiaoWCaoYLiuQGuoYet al. Oncolytic Adenovirus Programmed by Synthetic Gene Circuit for Cancer Immunotherapy. Nat Commun (2019) 10(1):4801. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-12794-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  PhilbrickBAdamsonDC. DNX-2401: An Investigational Drug for the Treatment of Recurrent Glioblastoma. Expert Opin Investig Drugs (2019) 28(12):1041–9. doi: 10.1080/13543784.2019.1694000

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  JiangHGomez-ManzanoCAokiHAlonsoMMKondoSMcCormickFet al. Examination of the Therapeutic Potential of Delta-24-RGD in Brain Tumor Stem Cells: Role of Autophagic Cell Death. J Natl Cancer Inst (2007) 99(18):1410–4. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djm102

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  van PuttenEHWembacher-SchroderESmitsMDirvenCM. Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Assessment of Gadolinium-Conjugated Diethylenetriamine Penta-Acetic Acid Test-Infusion in Detecting Dysfunction of Convection-Enhanced Delivery Catheters. World Neurosurg (2016) 89:272–9. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.02.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  VogelbaumMAAghiMK. Convection-Enhanced Delivery for the Treatment of Glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol (2015) 17:ii3–8. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/nou354

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  KimJWAuffingerBSpencerDAMiskaJChangALKaneJRet al. Single Dose GLP Toxicity and Biodistribution Study of a Conditionally Replicative Adenovirus Vector, CRAd-S-Pk7, Administered by Intracerebral Injection to Syrian Hamsters. J Transl Med (2016) 14(1):134. doi: 10.1186/s12967-016-0895-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  ChastkofskyMIPituchKCKatagiHZannikouMIlutLXiaoTet al. Mesenchymal Stem Cells Successfully Deliver Oncolytic Virotherapy to Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma. Clin Cancer Res (2021) 27(6):1766–77. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-1499

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  TaipaleKLiikanenIJuhilaJTurkkiRTahtinenSKankainenMet al. Chronic Activation of Innate Immunity Correlates With Poor Prognosis in Cancer Patients Treated With Oncolytic Adenovirus. Mol Ther (2016) 24(1):175–83. doi: 10.1038/mt.2015.143

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  MarelliGHowellsALemoineNRWangY. Oncolytic Viral Therapy and the Immune System: A Double-Edged Sword Against Cancer. Front Immunol (2018) 9:866. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00866

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  TodoT. Active Immunotherapy: Oncolytic Virus Therapy Using HSV-1. Adv Exp Med Biol (2012) 746:178–86. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3146-6_14

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  CheemaTAWakimotoHFecciPENingJKurodaTJeyaretnaDSet al. Multifaceted Oncolytic Virus Therapy for Glioblastoma in an Immunocompetent Cancer Stem Cell Model. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2013) 110(29):12006–11. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1307935110

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  GutzmerRHarringtonKJHoellerCLebbeCMalvehyJOhrlingKet al. Practical Clinical Guide on the Use of Talimogene Laherparepvec Monotherapy in Patients With Unresectable Melanoma in Europe. Eur J Dermatol (2018) 28(6):736–49. doi: 10.1684/ejd.2018.3447

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  MarkertJMMedlockMDRabkinSDGillespieGYTodoTHunterWDet al. Conditionally Replicating Herpes Simplex Virus Mutant, G207 for the Treatment of Malignant Glioma: Results of a Phase I Trial. Gene Ther (2000) 7(10):867–74. doi: 10.1038/sj.gt.3301205

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  RamplingRCruickshankGPapanastassiouVNicollJHadleyDBrennanDet al. Toxicity Evaluation of Replication-Competent Herpes Simplex Virus (ICP 34.5 Null Mutant 1716) in Patients With Recurrent Malignant Glioma. Gene Ther (2000) 7(10):859–66. doi: 10.1038/sj.gt.3301184

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  MarkertJMRazdanSNKuoHCCantorAKnollAKarraschMet al. A Phase 1 Trial of Oncolytic HSV-1, G207, Given in Combination With Radiation for Recurrent GBM Demonstrates Safety and Radiographic Responses. Mol Ther (2014) 22(5):1048–55. doi: 10.1038/mt.2014.22

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  FriedmanGKJohnstonJMBagAKBernstockJDLiRAbanIet al. Oncolytic HSV-1 G207 Immunovirotherapy for Pediatric High-Grade Gliomas. N Engl J Med (2021) 384(17):1613–22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2024947

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  SugawaraKIwaiMYajimaSTanakaMYanagiharaKSetoYet al. Efficacy of a Third-Generation Oncolytic Herpes Virus G47Delta in Advanced Stage Models of Human Gastric Cancer. Mol Ther Oncolytics (2020) 17:205–15. doi: 10.1016/j.omto.2020.03.022

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  FukuharaHInoYTodoT. Oncolytic Virus Therapy: A New Era of Cancer Treatment at Dawn. Cancer Sci (2016) 107(10):1373–9. doi: 10.1111/cas.13027

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  TaguchiSFukuharaHTodoT. Oncolytic Virus Therapy in Japan: Progress in Clinical Trials and Future Perspectives. Jpn J Clin Oncol (2019) 49(3):201–9. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyy170

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  AngelovaALGeletnekyKNueschJPRommelaereJ. Tumor Selectivity of Oncolytic Parvoviruses: From In Vitro and Animal Models to Cancer Patients. Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2015) 3:55. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2015.00055

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  GeletnekyKNueschJPAngelovaAKiprianovaIRommelaereJ. Double-Faceted Mechanism of Parvoviral Oncosuppression. Curr Opin Virol (2015) 13:17–24. doi: 10.1016/j.coviro.2015.03.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  MoehlerMHZeidlerMWilsbergVCornelisJJWoelfelTRommelaereJet al. Parvovirus H-1-Induced Tumor Cell Death Enhances Human Immune Response In Vitro via Increased Phagocytosis, Maturation, and Cross-Presentation by Dendritic Cells. Hum Gene Ther (2005) 16(8):996–1005. doi: 10.1089/hum.2005.16.996

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  GeletnekyKHajdaJAngelovaALLeuchsBCapperDBartschAJet al. Oncolytic H-1 Parvovirus Shows Safety and Signs of Immunogenic Activity in a First Phase I/IIa Glioblastoma Trial. Mol Ther (2017) 25(12):2620–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2017.08.016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  JiangBLunXHaoXWangYYinXHuangDet al. Temozolomide Resistant Human Brain Tumor Stem Cells are Susceptible to Recombinant Vesicular Stomatitis Virus and Double-Deleted Vaccinia Virus In Vitro. BioMed Pharmacother (2017) 95:1201–8. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2017.09.030

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  LunXRuanYJayanthanALiuDJSinghATrippettTet al. Double-Deleted Vaccinia Virus in Virotherapy for Refractory and Metastatic Pediatric Solid Tumors. Mol Oncol (2013) 7(5):944–54. doi: 10.1016/j.molonc.2013.05.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  TangBGuoZSBartlettDLYanDZSchaneCPThomasDLet al. Synergistic Combination of Oncolytic Virotherapy and Immunotherapy for Glioma. Clin Cancer Res (2020) 26(9):2216–30. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-3626

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  LunXYangWAlainTShiZQMuzikHBarrettJWet al. Myxoma Virus is a Novel Oncolytic Virus With Significant Antitumor Activity Against Experimental Human Gliomas. Cancer Res (2005) 65(21):9982–90. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-1201

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  LunXAlainTZempFJZhouHRahmanMMHamiltonMGet al. Myxoma Virus Virotherapy for Glioma in Immunocompetent Animal Models: Optimizing Administration Routes and Synergy With Rapamycin. Cancer Res (2010) 70(2):598–608. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-1510

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  OgbomoHZempFJLunXZhangJStackDRahmanMMet al. Myxoma Virus Infection Promotes NK Lysis of Malignant Gliomas In Vitro and In Vivo. PloS One (2013) 8(6):e66825. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066825

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  ZempFJLunXMcKenzieBAZhouHMaxwellLSunBet al. Treating Brain Tumor-Initiating Cells Using a Combination of Myxoma Virus and Rapamycin. Neuro Oncol (2013) 15(7):904–20. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/not035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  PisklakovaAMcKenzieBZempFLunXKenchappaRSEtameABet al. M011L-Deficient Oncolytic Myxoma Virus Induces Apoptosis in Brain Tumor-Initiating Cells and Enhances Survival in a Novel Immunocompetent Mouse Model of Glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol (2016) 18(8):1088–98. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/now006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  McKenzieBAZempFJPisklakovaANarendranAMcFaddenGLunXet al. In Vitro Screen of a Small Molecule Inhibitor Drug Library Identifies Multiple Compounds That Synergize With Oncolytic Myxoma Virus Against Human Brain Tumor-Initiating Cells. Neuro Oncol (2015) 17(8):1086–94. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/nou359

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  TangBGuoZSBartlettDLYanDZSchaneCPThomasDLet al. Synergistic Combination of Oncolytic Virotherapy and Immunotherapy for Glioma. Clin Cancer Res (2020) 26(9):2216–30. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-3626

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  WilcoxMEYangWSengerDRewcastleNBMorrisDGBrasherPMet al. Reovirus as an Oncolytic Agent Against Experimental Human Malignant Gliomas. J Natl Cancer Inst (2001) 93(12):903–12. doi: 10.1093/jnci/93.12.903

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  ForsythPRoldanGGeorgeDWallaceCPalmerCAMorrisDet al. A Phase I Trial of Intratumoral Administration of Reovirus in Patients With Histologically Confirmed Recurrent Malignant Gliomas. Mol Ther (2008) 16(3):627–32. doi: 10.1038/sj.mt.6300403

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  KicielinskiKPChioccaEAYuJSGillGMCoffeyMMarkertJM. Phase 1 Clinical Trial of Intratumoral Reovirus Infusion for the Treatment of Recurrent Malignant Gliomas in Adults. Mol Ther (2014) 22(5):1056–62. doi: 10.1038/mt.2014.21

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  Jaime-RamirezACYuJGCasertaEYooJYZhangJLeeTJet al. Reolysin and Histone Deacetylase Inhibition in the Treatment of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Mol Ther Oncolytics (2017) 5:87–96. doi: 10.1016/j.omto.2017.05.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  DobrikovaEYGoetzCWaltersRWLawsonSKPegginsJOMuszynskiKet al. Attenuation of Neurovirulence, Biodistribution, and Shedding of a Poliovirus:Rhinovirus Chimera After Intrathalamic Inoculation in Macaca Fascicularis. J Virol (2012) 86(5):2750–9. doi: 10.1128/JVI.06427-11

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  GoetzCDobrikovaEShveygertMDobrikovMGromeierM. Oncolytic Poliovirus Against Malignant Glioma. Future Virol (2011) 6(9):1045–58. doi: 10.2217/fvl.11.76

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  DobrikovaEYBroadtTPoiley-NelsonJYangXSomanGGiardinaSet al. Recombinant Oncolytic Poliovirus Eliminates Glioma In Vivo Without Genetic Adaptation to a Pathogenic Phenotype. Mol Ther (2008) 16(11):1865–72. doi: 10.1038/mt.2008.184

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  GromeierMLachmannSRosenfeldMRGutinPHWimmerE. Intergeneric Poliovirus Recombinants for the Treatment of Malignant Glioma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2000) 97(12):6803–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.97.12.6803

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  ZhangXWangHSunYQiMLiWZhangZet al. Enterovirus A71 Oncolysis of Malignant Gliomas. Mol Ther (2020) 28(6):1533–46. doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2020.04.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  DesjardinsAGromeierMHerndonJE2ndBeaubierNBolognesiDPFriedmanAHet al. Recurrent Glioblastoma Treated With Recombinant Poliovirus. N Engl J Med (2018) 379(2):150–61. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1716435

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  AndersonBDNakamuraTRussellSJPengKW. High CD46 Receptor Density Determines Preferential Killing of Tumor Cells by Oncolytic Measles Virus. Cancer Res (2004) 64(14):4919–26. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-0884

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  MyersRHarveyMKaufmannTJGreinerSMKrempskiJWRaffelCet al. Toxicology Study of Repeat Intracerebral Administration of a Measles Virus Derivative Producing Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Rhesus Macaques in Support of a Phase I/II Clinical Trial for Patients With Recurrent Gliomas. Hum Gene Ther (2008) 19(7):690–8. doi: 10.1089/hum.2008.035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  PhuongLKAllenCPengKWGianniniCGreinerSTenEyckCJet al. Use of a Vaccine Strain of Measles Virus Genetically Engineered to Produce Carcinoembryonic Antigen as a Novel Therapeutic Agent Against Glioblastoma Multiforme. Cancer Res (2003) 63(10):2462–9. doi: 10.1016/S1525-0016(16)43756-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  HardcastleJMillsLMaloCSJinFKurokawaCGeekiyanageHet al. Immunovirotherapy With Measles Virus Strains in Combination With Anti-PD-1 Antibody Blockade Enhances Antitumor Activity in Glioblastoma Treatment. Neuro Oncol (2017) 19(4):493–502. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/now179

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  RajaramanSCanjugaDGhoshMCodreaMCSiegerRWedekinkFet al. Measles Virus-Based Treatments Trigger a Pro-Inflammatory Cascade and a Distinctive Immunopeptidome in Glioblastoma. Mol Ther Oncolytics (2019) 12:147–61. doi: 10.1016/j.omto.2018.12.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  SuryawanshiYRSchulzeAJ. Oncolytic Viruses for Malignant Glioma: On the Verge of Success? Viruses (2021) 13(7):1294. doi: 10.3390/v13071294

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  ArefSBaileyKFieldingA. Measles to the Rescue: A Review of Oncolytic Measles Virus. Viruses (2016) 8(10):294. doi: 10.3390/v8100294

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  MyersRMGreinerSMHarveyMEGriesmannGKuffelMJBuhrowSAet al. Preclinical Pharmacology and Toxicology of Intravenous MV-NIS, an Oncolytic Measles Virus Administered With or Without Cyclophosphamide. Clin Pharmacol Ther (2007) 82(6):700–10. doi: 10.1038/sj.clpt.6100409

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  ZulkifliMMIbrahimRAliAMAiniIJaafarHHildaSSet al. Newcastle Diseases Virus Strain V4UPM Displayed Oncolytic Ability Against Experimental Human Malignant Glioma. Neurol Res (2009) 31(1):3–10. doi: 10.1179/174313208X325218

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  SchirrmacherVvan GoolSStueckerW. Breaking Therapy Resistance: An Update on Oncolytic Newcastle Disease Virus for Improvements of Cancer Therapy. Biomedicines (2019) 7(3):66. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines7030066

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  FanXLuHCuiYHouXHuangCLiuG. Overexpression of P53 Delivered Using Recombinant NDV Induces Apoptosis in Glioma Cells by Regulating the Apoptotic Signaling Pathway. Exp Ther Med (2018) 15(5):4522–30. doi: 10.3892/etm.2018.5935

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  FreemanAIZakay-RonesZGomoriJMLinetskyERasoolyLGreenbaumEet al. Phase I/II Trial of Intravenous NDV-HUJ Oncolytic Virus in Recurrent Glioblastoma Multiforme. Mol Ther (2006) 13(1):221–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2005.08.016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  AhmedMCramerSDLylesDS. Sensitivity of Prostate Tumors to Wild Type and M Protein Mutant Vesicular Stomatitis Viruses. Virology (2004) 330(1):34–49. doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2004.08.039

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  HastieEGrdzelishviliVZ. Vesicular Stomatitis Virus as a Flexible Platform for Oncolytic Virotherapy Against Cancer. J Gen Virol (2012) 93(Pt 12):2529–45. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.046672-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  ZhangXMaoGvan den PolAN. Chikungunya-Vesicular Stomatitis Chimeric Virus Targets and Eliminates Brain Tumors. Virology (2018) 522:244–59. doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2018.06.018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  JiangBHuangDHeWGuoWMmYinXet al. Inhibition of Glioma Using a Novel Non-Neurotoxic Vesicular Stomatitis Virus. Neurosurg Focus (2021) 50(2):E9. doi: 10.3171/2020.11.FOCUS20839

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  HuangTTParabSBurnettRDiagoOOstertagDHofmanFMet al. Intravenous Administration of Retroviral Replicating Vector, Toca 511, Demonstrates Therapeutic Efficacy in Orthotopic Immune-Competent Mouse Glioma Model. Hum Gene Ther (2015) 26(2):82–93. doi: 10.1089/hum.2014.100

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  CloughesyTFPetreccaKWalbertTButowskiNSalaczMPerryJet al. Effect of Vocimagene Amiretrorepvec in Combination With Flucytosine vs Standard of Care on Survival Following Tumor Resection in Patients With Recurrent High-Grade Glioma: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol (2020) 6(12):1939–46. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.3161

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  CloughesyTFLandolfiJVogelbaumMAOstertagDElderJBBloomfieldSet al. Durable Complete Responses in Some Recurrent High-Grade Glioma Patients Treated With Toca 511 + Toca FC. Neuro Oncol (2018) 20(10):1383–92. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noy075

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  HuangTTHlavatyJOstertagDEspinozaFLMartinBPetznekHet al. Toca 511 Gene Transfer and 5-Fluorocytosine in Combination With Temozolomide Demonstrates Synergistic Therapeutic Efficacy in a Temozolomide-Sensitive Glioblastoma Model. Cancer Gene Ther (2013) 20(10):544–51. doi: 10.1038/cgt.2013.51

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  BudzikKMNaceRAIkedaYRussellSJ. Oncolytic Foamy Virus - Generation and Properties of a Nonpathogenic Replicating Retroviral Vector System That Targets Chronically Proliferating Cancer Cells. J Virol (2021) 95(10):e00015–21. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00015-21

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  HancockWTMarfelMBelM. Zika Virus, French Polynesia, South Pacific, 2013. Emerg Infect Dis (2014) 20(11):1960. doi: 10.3201/eid2011.141380

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  KunoGChangGJ. Full-Length Sequencing and Genomic Characterization of Bagaza, Kedougou, and Zika Viruses. Arch Virol (2007) 152(4):687–96. doi: 10.1007/s00705-006-0903-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  MlakarJKorvaMTulNPopovicMPoljsak-PrijateljMMrazJet al. Zika Virus Associated With Microcephaly. N Engl J Med (2016) 374(10):951–8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1600651

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  PapaMPMeurenLMCoelhoSVALucasCGOMustafaYMLemos MatassoliFet al. Zika Virus Infects, Activates, and Crosses Brain Microvascular Endothelial Cells, Without Barrier Disruption. Front Microbiol (2017) 8:2557. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02557

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  AlimontiJBRibecco-LutkiewiczMSodjaCJezierskiAStanimirovicDBLiuQet al. Zika Virus Crosses an In Vitro Human Blood Brain Barrier Model. Fluids Barriers CNS (2018) 15(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s12987-018-0100-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  KaidCGoulartECaires-JuniorLCAraujoBHSSoares-SchanoskiABuenoHMSet al. Zika Virus Selectively Kills Aggressive Human Embryonal CNS Tumor Cells In Vitro and In Vivo. Cancer Res (2018) 78(12):3363–74. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-3201

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  ChenQWuJYeQMaFZhuQWuYet al. Treatment of Human Glioblastoma With a Live Attenuated Zika Virus Vaccine Candidate. mBio (2018) 9(5):e01683–18. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01683-18

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  NairSMazzoccoliLJashAGoveroJBaisSSHuTet al. Zika Virus Oncolytic Activity Requires CD8+ T Cells and is Boosted by Immune Checkpoint Blockade. JCI Insight (2021) 6(1):e144619. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.144619

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  TrusIBerubeNJiangPRakJGerdtsVKarniychukU. Zika Virus With Increased CpG Dinucleotide Frequencies Shows Oncolytic Activity in Glioblastoma Stem Cells. Viruses (2020) 12(5):579. doi: 10.3390/v12050579

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  KaidCMadiRAstrayRGoulartECaires-JuniorLCMitsugiTGet al. Safety, Tumor Reduction, and Clinical Impact of Zika Virus Injection in Dogs With Advanced-Stage Brain Tumors. Mol Ther (2020) 28(5):1276–86. doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2020.03.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  SuKYBalasubramaniamV. Zika Virus as Oncolytic Therapy for Brain Cancer: Myth or Reality? Front Microbiol (2019) 10:2715. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02715

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  LinYZhangHLiangJLiKZhuWFuLet al. Identification and Characterization of Alphavirus M1 as a Selective Oncolytic Virus Targeting ZAP-Defective Human Cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2014) 111(42):E4504–12. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1408759111

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  LiKZhangHQiuJLinYLiangJXiaoXet al. Activation of Cyclic Adenosine Monophosphate Pathway Increases the Sensitivity of Cancer Cells to the Oncolytic Virus M1. Mol Ther (2016) 24(1):156–65. doi: 10.1038/mt.2015.172

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  HuCLiuYLinYLiangJKZhongWWLiKet al. Intravenous Injections of the Oncolytic Virus M1 as a Novel Therapy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. Cell Death Dis (2018) 9(3):274. doi: 10.1038/s41419-018-0325-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  CaiJZhuWLinYZhangSChenXGongSet al. Systematic Characterization of the Biodistribution of the Oncolytic Virus M1. Hum Gene Ther (2020) 23(6):1519–30. doi: 10.1089/hum.2020.114

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  LiKHuCXingFGaoMLiangJXiaoXet al. Deficiency of the IRE1alpha-Autophagy Axis Enhances the Antitumor Effects of the Oncolytic Virus M1. J Virol (2018) 92(6):e01331–17. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01331-17

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  HeikkilaJEVaha-KoskelaMJRuotsalainenJJMartikainenMWStanfordMMMcCartJAet al. Intravenously Administered Alphavirus Vector VA7 Eradicates Orthotopic Human Glioma Xenografts in Nude Mice. PloS One (2010) 5(1):e8603. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008603

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  RamachandranMYuDDyczynskiMBaskaranSZhangLLullaAet al. Safe and Effective Treatment of Experimental Neuroblastoma and Glioblastoma Using Systemically Delivered Triple MicroRNA-Detargeted Oncolytic Semliki Forest Virus. Clin Cancer Res (2017) 23(6):1519–30. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-0925

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  YlosmakiEMartikainenMHinkkanenASakselaK. Attenuation of Semliki Forest Virus Neurovirulence by microRNA-Mediated Detargeting. J Virol (2013) 87(1):335–44. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01940-12

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  MartikainenMNiittykoskiMvon und zu FraunbergMImmonenAKoponenSvan GeenenMet al. MicroRNA-Attenuated Clone of Virulent Semliki Forest Virus Overcomes Antiviral Type I Interferon in Resistant Mouse CT-2a Glioma. J Virol (2015) 89(20):10637–47. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01868-15

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  MartikainenMRamachandranMLuganoRMaJMartikainenMMDimbergAet al. IFN-I-Tolerant Oncolytic Semliki Forest Virus in Combination With Anti-PD1 Enhances T Cell Response Against Mouse Glioma. Mol Ther Oncolytics (2021) 21:37–46. doi: 10.1016/j.omto.2021.03.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173

  LiuZZhaoXMaoHBaxterPAHuangYYuLet al. Intravenous Injection of Oncolytic Picornavirus SVV-001 Prolongs Animal Survival in a Panel of Primary Tumor-Based Orthotopic Xenograft Mouse Models of Pediatric Glioma. Neuro Oncol (2013) 15(9):1173–85. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/not065

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174

  ChenYYuDCCharltonDHendersonDR. Pre-Existent Adenovirus Antibody Inhibits Systemic Toxicity and Antitumor Activity of CN706 in the Nude Mouse LNCaP Xenograft Model: Implications and Proposals for Human Therapy. Hum Gene Ther (2000) 11(11):1553–67. doi: 10.1089/10430340050083289

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 175

  NiemannJWollerNBrooksJFleischmann-MundtBMartinNTKloosAet al. Molecular Retargeting of Antibodies Converts Immune Defense Against Oncolytic Viruses Into Cancer Immunotherapy. Nat Commun (2019) 10(1):3236. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-11137-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176

  RiccaJMOseledchykAWaltherTLiuCMangarinLMerghoubTet al. Pre-Existing Immunity to Oncolytic Virus Potentiates Its Immunotherapeutic Efficacy. Mol Ther (2018) 26(4):1008–19. doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2018.01.019

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177

  TahtinenSFeolaSCapassoCLaustioNGroeneveldtCYlosmakiEOet al. Exploiting Preexisting Immunity to Enhance Oncolytic Cancer Immunotherapy. Cancer Res (2020) 80(12):2575–85. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-19-2062

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 178

  RajaJLudwigJMGettingerSNSchalperKAKimHS. Oncolytic Virus Immunotherapy: Future Prospects for Oncology. J Immunother Cancer (2018) 6(1):140. doi: 10.1186/s40425-018-0458-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 179

  OngHTFederspielMJGuoCMOoiLLRussellSJPengKWet al. Systemically Delivered Measles Virus-Infected Mesenchymal Stem Cells can Evade Host Immunity to Inhibit Liver Cancer Growth. J Hepatol (2013) 59(5):999–1006. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2013.07.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180

  PowerATWangJFallsTJPatersonJMParatoKALichtyBDet al. Carrier Cell-Based Delivery of an Oncolytic Virus Circumvents Antiviral Immunity. Mol Ther (2007) 15(1):123–30. doi: 10.1038/sj.mt.6300039

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 181

  OhkuriTGhoshAKosakaAZhuJIkeuraMDavidMet al. STING Contributes to Antiglioma Immunity via Triggering Type I IFN Signals in the Tumor Microenvironment. Cancer Immunol Res (2014) 2(12):1199–208. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-14-0099

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 182

  FujitaMScheurerMEDeckerSAMcDonaldHAKohanbashGKastenhuberERet al. Role of Type 1 IFNs in Antiglioma Immunosurveillance–Using Mouse Studies to Guide Examination of Novel Prognostic Markers in Humans. Clin Cancer Res (2010) 16(13):3409–19. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-0644

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 183

  ZitvogelLGalluzziLKeppOSmythMJKroemerG. Type I Interferons in Anticancer Immunity. Nat Rev Immunol (2015) 15(7):405–14. doi: 10.1038/nri3845

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 184

  MeleroIQuetglasJIReboredoMDubrotJRodriguez-MadozJRManchenoUet al. Strict Requirement for Vector-Induced Type I Interferon in Efficacious Antitumor Responses to Virally Encoded IL12. Cancer Res (2015) 75(3):497–507. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-3356

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 185

  FroechlichGCaiazzaCGentileCD’AliseAMDe LuciaMLangoneFet al. Integrity of the Antiviral STING-Mediated DNA Sensing in Tumor Cells Is Required to Sustain the Immunotherapeutic Efficacy of Herpes Simplex Oncolytic Virus. Cancers (Basel) (2020) 12(11):3407. doi: 10.3390/cancers12113407

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 186

  BordenEC. Interferons Alpha and Beta in Cancer: Therapeutic Opportunities From New Insights. Nat Rev Drug Discovery (2019) 18(3):219–34. doi: 10.1038/s41573-018-0011-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187

  SalmonHIdoyagaJRahmanALeboeufMRemarkRJordanSet al. Expansion and Activation of CD103(+) Dendritic Cell Progenitors at the Tumor Site Enhances Tumor Responses to Therapeutic PD-L1 and BRAF Inhibition. Immunity (2016) 44(4):924–38. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2016.03.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 188

  CorralesLMatsonVFloodBSprangerSGajewskiTF. Innate Immune Signaling and Regulation in Cancer Immunotherapy. Cell Res (2017) 27(1):96–108. doi: 10.1038/cr.2016.149

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 189

  DabritzJ. GM-CSF and the Role of Myeloid Regulatory Cells in the Pathogenesis and Treatment of Crohn’s Disease. Mol Cell Pediatr (2015) 2(1):12. doi: 10.1186/s40348-015-0024-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190

  JensenHAndresenLNielsenJChristensenJPSkovS. Vesicular Stomatitis Virus Infection Promotes Immune Evasion by Preventing NKG2D-Ligand Surface Expression. PloS One (2011) 6(8):e23023. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023023

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 191

  NakatakeMKurosakiHKuwanoNHoritaKItoMKonoHet al. Partial Deletion of Glycoprotein B5R Enhances Vaccinia Virus Neutralization Escape While Preserving Oncolytic Function. Mol Ther Oncolytics (2019) 14:159–71. doi: 10.1016/j.omto.2019.05.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 192

  TopkanETopukSOymakEParlakCPehlivanB. Pseudoprogression in Patients With Glioblastoma Multiforme After Concurrent Radiotherapy and Temozolomide. Am J Clin Oncol (2012) 35(3):284–9. doi: 10.1097/COC.0b013e318210f54a

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 193

  TaalWBrandsmaDde BruinHGBrombergJESwaak-KragtenATSmittPAet al. Incidence of Early Pseudo-Progression in a Cohort of Malignant Glioma Patients Treated With Chemoirradiation With Temozolomide. Cancer (2008) 113(2):405–10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23562

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 194

  WatneKHagerBHeierMHirschbergH. Reversible Oedema and Necrosis After Irradiation of the Brain. Diagnostic Procedures and Clinical Manifestations. Acta Oncol (1990) 29(7):891–5. doi: 10.3109/02841869009096385

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 195

  ChiouVLBurottoM. Pseudoprogression and Immune-Related Response in Solid Tumors. J Clin Oncol (2015) 33(31):3541–3. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.6870

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 196

  CalandriMSolitroFAngelinoVMorettiFVeltriA. The Role of Radiology in the Evaluation of the Immunotherapy Efficacy. J Thorac Dis (2018) 10(Suppl 13):S1438–S46. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.05.130

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 197

  BrownMCHollEKBoczkowskiDDobrikovaEMosahebMChandramohanVet al. Cancer Immunotherapy With Recombinant Poliovirus Induces IFN-Dominant Activation of Dendritic Cells and Tumor Antigen-Specific CTLs. Sci Transl Med (2017) 9(408):eaan4220. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aan4220

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 198

  Delgado-LopezPDRinones-MenaECorrales-GarciaEM. Treatment-Related Changes in Glioblastoma: A Review on the Controversies in Response Assessment Criteria and the Concepts of True Progression, Pseudoprogression, Pseudoresponse and Radionecrosis. Clin Transl Oncol (2018) 20(8):939–53. doi: 10.1007/s12094-017-1816-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 199

  PitterKLTamagnoIAlikhanyanKHosni-AhmedAPattwellSSDonnolaSet al. Corticosteroids Compromise Survival in Glioblastoma. Brain (2016) 139(Pt 5):1458–71. doi: 10.1093/brain/aww046

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 200

  GilesAJHutchinsonMNDSonnemannHMJungJFecciPERatnamNMet al. Dexamethasone-Induced Immunosuppression: Mechanisms and Implications for Immunotherapy. J Immunother Cancer (2018) 6(1):51. doi: 10.1186/s40425-018-0371-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 201

  EisenhauerEATherassePBogaertsJSchwartzLHSargentDFordRet al. New Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours: Revised RECIST Guideline (Version 1.1). Eur J Cancer (2009) 45(2):228–47. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 202

  SeymourLBogaertsJPerroneAFordRSchwartzLHMandrekarSet al. iRECIST: Guidelines for Response Criteria for Use in Trials Testing Immunotherapeutics. Lancet Oncol (2017) 18(3):e143–e52. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30074-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 203

  WenPYMacdonaldDRReardonDACloughesyTFSorensenAGGalanisEet al. Updated Response Assessment Criteria for High-Grade Gliomas: Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group. J Clin Oncol (2010) 28(11):1963–72. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3541

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 204

  LeeJWangNTurkSMohammedSLoboRKimJet al. Discriminating Pseudoprogression and True Progression in Diffuse Infiltrating Glioma Using Multi-Parametric MRI Data Through Deep Learning. Sci Rep (2020) 10(1):20331. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-77389-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 205

  KimJYParkJEJoYShimWHNamSJKimJHet al. Incorporating Diffusion- and Perfusion-Weighted MRI Into a Radiomics Model Improves Diagnostic Performance for Pseudoprogression in Glioblastoma Patients. Neuro Oncol (2019) 21(3):404–14. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noy133

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 206

  AntoniosJPSotoHEversonRGMoughonDLWangACOrpillaJet al. Detection of Immune Responses After Immunotherapy in Glioblastoma Using. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2017) 114(38):10220–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1706689114

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 207

  MatveevaOVChumakovPM. Defects in Interferon Pathways as Potential Biomarkers of Sensitivity to Oncolytic Viruses. Rev Med Virol (2018) 28(6):e2008. doi: 10.1002/rmv.2008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 208

  SprootenJAgostinisPGargAD. Type I Interferons and Dendritic Cells in Cancer Immunotherapy. Int Rev Cell Mol Biol (2019) 348:217–62. doi: 10.1016/bs.ircmb.2019.06.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 209

  GlasMCochCTrageserDDasslerJSimonMKochPet al. Targeting the Cytosolic Innate Immune Receptors RIG-I and MDA5 Effectively Counteracts Cancer Cell Heterogeneity in Glioblastoma. Stem Cells (2013) 31(6):1064–74. doi: 10.1002/stem.1350

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 210

  BeschRPoeckHHohenauerTSenftDHackerGBerkingCet al. Proapoptotic Signaling Induced by RIG-I and MDA-5 Results in Type I Interferon-Independent Apoptosis in Human Melanoma Cells. J Clin Invest (2009) 119(8):2399–411. doi: 10.1172/JCI37155

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 211

  ElionDLJacobsonMEHicksDJRahmanBSanchezVGonzales-EricssonPIet al. Therapeutically Active RIG-I Agonist Induces Immunogenic Tumor Cell Killing in Breast Cancers. Cancer Res (2018) 78(21):6183–95. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-0730

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 212

  LiDGaleRPLiuYLeiBWangYDiaoDet al. 5’-Triphosphate siRNA Targeting MDR1 Reverses Multi-Drug Resistance and Activates RIG-I-Induced Immune-Stimulatory and Apoptotic Effects Against Human Myeloid Leukaemia Cells. Leuk Res (2017) 58:23–30. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2017.03.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 213

  VascottoFPetschenkaJWalzerKCVormehrMBrkicMStroblSet al. Intravenous Delivery of the Toll-Like Receptor 7 Agonist SC1 Confers Tumor Control by Inducing a CD8+ T Cell Response. Oncoimmunology (2019) 8(7):1601480. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2019.1601480

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 214

  BuonfiglioliAEfeIEGuneykayaDIvanovAHuangYOrlowskiEet al. Let-7 MicroRNAs Regulate Microglial Function and Suppress Glioma Growth Through Toll-Like Receptor 7. Cell Rep (2019) 29(11):3460–71 e7. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.11.029

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 215

  LinderABotheVLinderNSchwarzlmuellerPDahlstromFBartenhagenCet al. Defective Interfering Genomes and the Full-Length Viral Genome Trigger RIG-I After Infection With Vesicular Stomatitis Virus in a Replication Dependent Manner. Front Immunol (2021) 12:595390. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.595390

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 216

  AchardCGuillermeJBBruniDBoisgeraultNCombredetCTangyFet al. Oncolytic Measles Virus Induces Tumor Necrosis Factor-Related Apoptosis-Inducing Ligand (TRAIL)-Mediated Cytotoxicity by Human Myeloid and Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cells. Oncoimmunology (2017) 6(1):e1261240. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2016.1261240

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 217

  AnYWangXWuXChenLYangYLinXet al. Oncolytic Reovirus Induces Ovarian Cancer Cell Apoptosis in a TLR3-Dependent Manner. Virus Res (2021) 301:198440. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2021.198440

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 218

  KatayamaYTachibanaMKurisuNOyaYTerasawaYGodaHet al. Oncolytic Reovirus Inhibits Immunosuppressive Activity of Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells in a TLR3-Dependent Manner. J Immunol (2018) 200(8):2987–99. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1700435

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 219

  SiebenMSchaferPDinsartCGallePRMoehlerM. Activation of the Human Immune System via Toll-Like Receptors by the Oncolytic Parvovirus H-1. Int J Cancer (2013) 132(11):2548–56. doi: 10.1002/ijc.27938

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 220

  RommelfangerDMCompteMDiazRMIlettEAlvarez-VallinaLThompsonJMet al. The Efficacy Versus Toxicity Profile of Combination Virotherapy and TLR Immunotherapy Highlights the Danger of Administering TLR Agonists to Oncolytic Virus-Treated Mice. Mol Ther (2013) 21(2):348–57. doi: 10.1038/mt.2012.204

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 221

  DengSZhuSQiaoYLiuYJChenWZhaoGet al. Recent Advances in the Role of Toll-Like Receptors and TLR Agonists in Immunotherapy for Human Glioma. Protein Cell (2014) 5(12):899–911. doi: 10.1007/s13238-014-0112-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 222

  Maleki VarekiSGarrigosCDuranI. Biomarkers of Response to PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibition. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol (2017) 116:116–24. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2017.06.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 223

  MatveevaOVShabalinaSA. Prospects for Using Expression Patterns of Paramyxovirus Receptors as Biomarkers for Oncolytic Virotherapy. Cancers (Basel) (2020) 12(12):3659. doi: 10.3390/cancers12123659

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 224

  StavrakakiEDirvenCMFLamfersMLM. Personalizing Oncolytic Virotherapy for Glioblastoma: In Search of Biomarkers for Response. Cancers (Basel) (2021) 13(4):614. doi: 10.3390/cancers13040614

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 225

  AkterFSimonBde BoerNLRedjalNWakimotoHShahK. Pre-Clinical Tumor Models of Primary Brain Tumors: Challenges and Opportunities. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer (2021) 1875(1):188458. doi: 10.1016/j.bbcan.2020.188458

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 226

  SibenallerZAEtameABAliMMBaruaMBraunTACasavantTLet al. Genetic Characterization of Commonly Used Glioma Cell Lines in the Rat Animal Model System. Neurosurg Focus (2005) 19(4):E1. doi: 10.3171/foc.2005.19.4.2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 227

  von WerderASeidlerBSchmidRMSchneiderGSaurD. Production of Avian Retroviruses and Tissue-Specific Somatic Retroviral Gene Transfer In Vivo Using the RCAS/TVA System. Nat Protoc (2012) 7(6):1167–83. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2012.060

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 228

  VaubelRATianSRemondeDSchroederMAMladekACKitangeGJet al. Genomic and Phenotypic Characterization of a Broad Panel of Patient-Derived Xenografts Reflects the Diversity of Glioblastoma. Clin Cancer Res (2020) 26(5):1094–104. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0909

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 229

  ClementVDutoitVMarinoDDietrichPYRadovanovicI. Limits of CD133 as a Marker of Glioma Self-Renewing Cells. Int J Cancer (2009) 125(1):244–8. doi: 10.1002/ijc.24352

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 230

  LuchmanHAChesnelongCCairncrossJGWeissS. Spontaneous Loss of Heterozygosity Leading to Homozygous R132H in a Patient-Derived IDH1 Mutant Cell Line. Neuro Oncol (2013) 15(8):979–80. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/not064

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 231

  KauerTMFigueiredoJLHingtgenSShahK. Encapsulated Therapeutic Stem Cells Implanted in the Tumor Resection Cavity Induce Cell Death in Gliomas. Nat Neurosci (2011) 15(2):197–204. doi: 10.1038/nn.3019

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 232

  LiAWallingJKotliarovYCenterASteedMEAhnSJet al. Genomic Changes and Gene Expression Profiles Reveal That Established Glioma Cell Lines are Poorly Representative of Primary Human Gliomas. Mol Cancer Res (2008) 6(1):21–30. doi: 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-07-0280

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 233

  RobinsonMLiBGeYKoDYendluriSHardingTet al. Novel Immunocompetent Murine Tumor Model for Evaluation of Conditionally Replication-Competent (Oncolytic) Murine Adenoviral Vectors. J Virol (2009) 83(8):3450–62. doi: 10.1128/JVI.02561-08

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 234

  VittoriMMotalnHTurnsekTL. The Study of Glioma by Xenotransplantation in Zebrafish Early Life Stages. J Histochem Cytochem (2015) 63(10):749–61. doi: 10.1369/0022155415595670

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 235

  WitteHTJeibmannAKlambtCPaulusW. Modeling Glioma Growth and Invasion in Drosophila Melanogaster. Neoplasia (2009) 11(9):882–8. doi: 10.1593/neo.09576

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 236

  LinkousABalamatsiasDSnuderlMEdwardsLMiyaguchiKMilnerTet al. Modeling Patient-Derived Glioblastoma With Cerebral Organoids. Cell Rep (2019) 26(12):3203–11.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.02.063

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 237

  YoungJSBernalGPolsterSPNunezLLarsenGFMansourNet al. Convection-Enhanced Delivery of Polymeric Nanoparticles Encapsulating Chemotherapy in Canines With Spontaneous Supratentorial Tumors. World Neurosurg (2018) 117:e698–704. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.06.114

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 238

  ChioccaEANassiriFWangJPeruzziPZadehG. Viral and Other Therapies for Recurrent Glioblastoma: Is a 24-Month Durable Response Unusual? Neuro Oncol (2019) 21(1):14–25. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noy170

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 239

  WestphalMBlackPM. Perspectives of Cellular and Molecular Neurosurgery. J Neurooncol (2004) 70(2):255–69. doi: 10.1007/s11060-004-2754-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 240

  CarpenterABCarpenterAMAikenRHanftS. Oncolytic Virus in Gliomas: A Review of Human Clinical Investigations. Ann Oncol (2021) 32(8):968–82. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.03.197

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 241

  SprangerSDaiDHortonBGajewskiTF. Tumor-Residing Batf3 Dendritic Cells Are Required for Effector T Cell Trafficking and Adoptive T Cell Therapy. Cancer Cell (2017) 31(5):711–23.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2017.04.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 242

  VogesJReszkaRGossmannADittmarCRichterRGarlipGet al. Imaging-Guided Convection-Enhanced Delivery and Gene Therapy of Glioblastoma. Ann Neurol (2003) 54(4):479–87. doi: 10.1002/ana.10688

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 243

  LichtyBDBreitbachCJStojdlDFBellJC. Going Viral With Cancer Immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer (2014) 14(8):559–67. doi: 10.1038/nrc3770

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 244

  BeccariaKCanneyMBouchouxGDesseauxCGrillJHeimbergerABet al. Ultrasound-Induced Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption for the Treatment of Gliomas and Other Primary CNS Tumors. Cancer Lett (2020) 479:13–22. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2020.02.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 245

  CarpentierACanneyMVignotAReinaVBeccariaKHorodyckidCet al. Clinical Trial of Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption by Pulsed Ultrasound. Sci Transl Med (2016) 8(343):343re2. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf6086

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 246

  Gasca-SalasCFernandez-RodriguezBPineda-PardoJARodriguez-RojasRObesoIHernandez-FernandezFet al. Blood-Brain Barrier Opening With Focused Ultrasound in Parkinson’s Disease Dementia. Nat Commun (2021) 12(1):779. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21022-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 247

  IlettEKottkeTDonnellyOThompsonJWillmonCDiazRet al. Cytokine Conditioning Enhances Systemic Delivery and Therapy of an Oncolytic Virus. Mol Ther (2014) 22(10):1851–63. doi: 10.1038/mt.2014.118

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 248

  RahnJJLunXJorchSKHaoXVenugopalCVoraPet al. Development of a Peptide-Based Delivery Platform for Targeting Malignant Brain Tumors. Biomaterials (2020) 252:120105. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2020.120105

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 249

  TotschSKSchlappiCKangKDIshizukaASLynnGMFoxBet al. Oncolytic Herpes Simplex Virus Immunotherapy for Brain Tumors: Current Pitfalls and Emerging Strategies to Overcome Therapeutic Resistance. Oncogene (2019) 38(34):6159–71. doi: 10.1038/s41388-019-0870-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 250

  Vaha-KoskelaMHinkkanenA. Tumor Restrictions to Oncolytic Virus. Biomedicines (2014) 2(2):163–94. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines2020163

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 251

  PrinsRMLiauLM. Immunology and Immunotherapy in Neurosurgical Disease. Neurosurgery (2003) 53(1):144–52. doi: 10.1227/01.neu.0000068865.34216.3a discussion 52-3.

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 252

  SivanandamVLaRoccaCJChenNGFongYWarnerSG. Oncolytic Viruses and Immune Checkpoint Inhibition: The Best of Both Worlds. Mol Ther Oncolytics (2019) 13:93–106. doi: 10.1016/j.omto.2019.04.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 253

  ChesneyJPuzanovICollichioFSinghPMilhemMMGlaspyJet al. Randomized, Open-Label Phase II Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Talimogene Laherparepvec in Combination With Ipilimumab Versus Ipilimumab Alone in Patients With Advanced, Unresectable Melanoma. J Clin Oncol (2018) 36(17):1658–67. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.73.7379

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 254

  WrightJJPowersACJohnsonDB. Endocrine Toxicities of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors. Nat Rev Endocrinol (2021) 17(7):389–99. doi: 10.1038/s41574-021-00484-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 255

  ReardonDABrandesAAOmuroAMulhollandPLimMWickAet al. Effect of Nivolumab vs Bevacizumab in Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma: The CheckMate 143 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol (2020) 6(7):1003–10. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 256

  Bourgeois-DaigneaultMCRoyDGAitkenASEl SayesNMartinNTVaretteOet al. Neoadjuvant Oncolytic Virotherapy Before Surgery Sensitizes Triple-Negative Breast Cancer to Immune Checkpoint Therapy. Sci Transl Med (2018) 10(422):eaao1641. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aao1641

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 257

  WangGKangXChenKSJehngTJonesLChenJet al. An Engineered Oncolytic Virus Expressing PD-L1 Inhibitors Activates Tumor Neoantigen-Specific T Cell Responses. Nat Commun (2020) 11(1):1395. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-15229-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 258

  JiangHRivera-MolinaYGomez-ManzanoCClise-DwyerKBoverLVenceLMet al. Oncolytic Adenovirus and Tumor-Targeting Immune Modulatory Therapy Improve Autologous Cancer Vaccination. Cancer Res (2017) 77(14):3894–907. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0468

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 259

  SahaDMartuzaRLRabkinSD. Macrophage Polarization Contributes to Glioblastoma Eradication by Combination Immunovirotherapy and Immune Checkpoint Blockade. Cancer Cell (2017) 32(2):253–67 e5. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2017.07.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 260

  CockleJVRajaniKZaidiSKottkeTThompsonJDiazRMet al. Combination Viroimmunotherapy With Checkpoint Inhibition to Treat Glioma, Based on Location-Specific Tumor Profiling. Neuro Oncol (2016) 18(4):518–27. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/nov173

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 261

  CloughesyTFMochizukiAYOrpillaJRHugoWLeeAHDavidsonTBet al. Neoadjuvant Anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy Promotes a Survival Benefit With Intratumoral and Systemic Immune Responses in Recurrent Glioblastoma. Nat Med (2019) 25(3):477–86. doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0337-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 262

  SchumacherTBunseLPuschSSahmFWiestlerBQuandtJet al. A Vaccine Targeting Mutant IDH1 Induces Antitumour Immunity. Nature (2014) 512(7514):324–7. doi: 10.1038/nature13387

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 263

  IchikawaKKagamuHKoyamaKMiyabayashiTKoshioJMiuraSet al. Epitope Diversification Driven by non-Tumor Epitope-Specific Th1 and Th17 Mediates Potent Antitumor Reactivity. Vaccine (2012) 30(43):6190–7. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.07.060

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 264

  RussellSJBarberGN. Oncolytic Viruses as Antigen-Agnostic Cancer Vaccines. Cancer Cell (2018) 33(4):599–605. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2018.03.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 265

  OkadaHKalinskiPUedaRHojiAKohanbashGDoneganTEet al. Induction of CD8+ T-Cell Responses Against Novel Glioma-Associated Antigen Peptides and Clinical Activity by Vaccinations With {Alpha}-Type 1 Polarized Dendritic Cells and Polyinosinic-Polycytidylic Acid Stabilized by Lysine and Carboxymethylcellulose in Patients With Recurrent Malignant Glioma. J Clin Oncol (2011) 29(3):330–6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.30.7744

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 266

  PhuphanichSWheelerCJRudnickJDMazerMWangHNunoMAet al. Phase I Trial of a Multi-Epitope-Pulsed Dendritic Cell Vaccine for Patients With Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma. Cancer Immunol Immunother (2013) 62(1):125–35. doi: 10.1007/s00262-012-1319-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 267

  WenPYReardonDAArmstrongTSPhuphanichSAikenRDLandolfiJCet al. A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Phase II Trial of Dendritic Cell Vaccine ICT-107 in Newly Diagnosed Patients With Glioblastoma. Clin Cancer Res (2019) 25(19):5799–807. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0261

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 268

  Van BrusselIBernemanZNCoolsN. Optimizing Dendritic Cell-Based Immunotherapy: Tackling the Complexity of Different Arms of the Immune System. Mediators Inflamm (2012) 2012:690643. doi: 10.1155/2012/690643

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 269

  FarrellCJZaupaCBarnardZMaleyJMartuzaRLRabkinSDet al. Combination Immunotherapy for Tumors via Sequential Intratumoral Injections of Oncolytic Herpes Simplex Virus 1 and Immature Dendritic Cells. Clin Cancer Res (2008) 14(23):7711–6. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-1364

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 270

  LiJO’MalleyMUrbanJSampathPGuoZSKalinskiPet al. Chemokine Expression From Oncolytic Vaccinia Virus Enhances Vaccine Therapies of Cancer. Mol Ther (2011) 19(4):650–7. doi: 10.1038/mt.2010.312

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 271

  KoskeIRosslerAPippergerLPeterssonMBarnstorfIKimpelJet al. Oncolytic Virotherapy Enhances the Efficacy of a Cancer Vaccine by Modulating the Tumor Microenvironment. Int J Cancer (2019) 145(7):1958–69. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32325

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 272

  ZhangSNChoiIKHuangJHYooJYChoiKJYunCO. Optimizing DC Vaccination by Combination With Oncolytic Adenovirus Coexpressing IL-12 and GM-CSF. Mol Ther (2011) 19(8):1558–68. doi: 10.1038/mt.2011.29

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 273

  ZafarSBasnetSLaunonenIMQuixabeiraDCASantosJHemminkiOet al. Oncolytic Adenovirus Type 3 Coding for CD40L Facilitates Dendritic Cell Therapy of Prostate Cancer in Humanized Mice and Patient Samples. Hum Gene Ther (2021) 32(3-4):192–202. doi: 10.1089/hum.2020.222

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 274

  SampsonJHHeimbergerABArcherGEAldapeKDFriedmanAHFriedmanHSet al. Immunologic Escape After Prolonged Progression-Free Survival With Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Variant III Peptide Vaccination in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol (2010) 28(31):4722–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.6963

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 275

  OjiYHashimotoNTsuboiAMurakamiYIwaiMKagawaNet al. Association of WT1 IgG Antibody Against WT1 Peptide With Prolonged Survival in Glioblastoma Multiforme Patients Vaccinated With WT1 Peptide. Int J Cancer (2016) 139(6):1391–401. doi: 10.1002/ijc.30182

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 276

  AthertonMJStephensonKBNikotaJKHuQNNguyenAWanYet al. Preclinical Development of Peptide Vaccination Combined With Oncolytic MG1-E6E7 for HPV-Associated Cancer. Vaccine (2018) 36(16):2181–92. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.02.070

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 277

  PollackIFJakackiRIButterfieldLHHamiltonRLPanigrahyAPotterDMet al. Antigen-Specific Immune Responses and Clinical Outcome After Vaccination With Glioma-Associated Antigen Peptides and Polyinosinic-Polycytidylic Acid Stabilized by Lysine and Carboxymethylcellulose in Children With Newly Diagnosed Malignant Brainstem and Nonbrainstem Gliomas. J Clin Oncol (2014) 32(19):2050–8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.0526

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 278

  RamplingRPeoplesSMulhollandPJJamesAAl-SalihiOTwelvesCJet al. A Cancer Research UK First Time in Human Phase I Trial of IMA950 (Novel Multipeptide Therapeutic Vaccine) in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma. Clin Cancer Res (2016) 22(19):4776–85. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-0506

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 279

  KeskinDBAnandappaAJSunJTiroshIMathewsonNDLiSet al. Neoantigen Vaccine Generates Intratumoral T Cell Responses in Phase Ib Glioblastoma Trial. Nature (2019) 565(7738):234–9. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0792-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 280

  SchuesslerASmithCBeagleyLBoyleGMRehanSMatthewsKet al. Autologous T-Cell Therapy for Cytomegalovirus as a Consolidative Treatment for Recurrent Glioblastoma. Cancer Res (2014) 74(13):3466–76. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0296

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 281

  LongKBYoungRMBoesteanuACDavisMMMelenhorstJJLaceySFet al. CAR T Cell Therapy of Non-Hematopoietic Malignancies: Detours on the Road to Clinical Success. Front Immunol (2018) 9:2740. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02740

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 282

  O’RourkeDMNasrallahMPDesaiAMelenhorstJJMansfieldKMorrissetteJJDet al. A Single Dose of Peripherally Infused EGFRvIII-Directed CAR T Cells Mediates Antigen Loss and Induces Adaptive Resistance in Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma. Sci Transl Med (2017) 9(399):eaaa0984. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaa0984

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 283

  AhmedNBrawleyVHegdeMBielamowiczKKalraMLandiDet al. HER2-Specific Chimeric Antigen Receptor-Modified Virus-Specific T Cells for Progressive Glioblastoma: A Phase 1 Dose-Escalation Trial. JAMA Oncol (2017) 3(8):1094–101. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0184

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 284

  KershawMHWestwoodJAParkerLLWangGEshharZMavroukakisSAet al. A Phase I Study on Adoptive Immunotherapy Using Gene-Modified T Cells for Ovarian Cancer. Clin Cancer Res (2006) 12(20 Pt 1):6106–15. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1183

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 285

  HuangJZhengMZhangZTangXChenYPengAet al. Interleukin-7-Loaded Oncolytic Adenovirus Improves CAR-T Cell Therapy for Glioblastoma. Cancer Immunol Immunother (2021) 70(9):2453–65. doi: 10.1007/s00262-021-02856-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 286

  AjinaAMaherJ. Prospects for Combined Use of Oncolytic Viruses and CAR T-Cells. J Immunother Cancer (2017) 5(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s40425-017-0294-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 287

  NishioNDottiG. Oncolytic Virus Expressing RANTES and IL-15 Enhances Function of CAR-Modified T Cells in Solid Tumors. Oncoimmunology (2015) 4(2):e988098. doi: 10.4161/21505594.2014.988098

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 288

  NishioNDiaconuILiuHCerulloVCaruanaIHoyosVet al. Armed Oncolytic Virus Enhances Immune Functions of Chimeric Antigen Receptor-Modified T Cells in Solid Tumors. Cancer Res (2014) 74(18):5195–205. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0697

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 289

  EvginLHuffALWongthidaPThompsonJKottkeTTonneJet al. Oncolytic Virus-Derived Type I Interferon Restricts CAR T Cell Therapy. Nat Commun (2020) 11(1):3187. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-17011-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 290

  MoonEKWangLSBekdacheKLynnRCLoAThorneSHet al. Intra-Tumoral Delivery of CXCL11 via a Vaccinia Virus, But Not by Modified T Cells, Enhances the Efficacy of Adoptive T Cell Therapy and Vaccines. Oncoimmunology (2018) 7(3):e1395997. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2017.1395997

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 291

  BerraondoPEtxeberriaIPonz-SarviseMMeleroI. Revisiting Interleukin-12 as a Cancer Immunotherapy Agent. Clin Cancer Res (2018) 24(12):2716–8. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0381

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 292

  NguyenHMGuz-MontgomeryKSahaD. Oncolytic Virus Encoding a Master Pro-Inflammatory Cytokine Interleukin 12 in Cancer Immunotherapy. Cells (2020) 9(2):400. doi: 10.3390/cells9020400

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 293

  PoutouJBunualesMGonzalez-AparicioMGarcia-AragoncilloEQuetglasJICasadoRet al. Safety and Antitumor Effect of Oncolytic and Helper-Dependent Adenoviruses Expressing Interleukin-12 Variants in a Hamster Pancreatic Cancer Model. Gene Ther (2015) 22(9):696–706. doi: 10.1038/gt.2015.45

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 294

  RothJCCassadyKACodyJJParkerJNPriceKHColemanJMet al. Evaluation of the Safety and Biodistribution of M032, an Attenuated Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 Expressing hIL-12, After Intracerebral Administration to Aotus Nonhuman Primates. Hum Gene Ther Clin Dev (2014) 25(1):16–27. doi: 10.1089/humc.2013.201

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 295

  MartinNTBellJC. Oncolytic Virus Combination Therapy: Killing One Bird With Two Stones. Mol Ther (2018) 26(6):1414–22. doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2018.04.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 296

  RenJGwinWRZhouXWangXHuangHJiangNet al. Adaptive T Cell Responses Induced by Oncolytic Herpes Simplex Virus-Granulocyte Macrophage-Colony-Stimulating Factor Therapy Expanded by Dendritic Cell and Cytokine-Induced Killer Cell Adoptive Therapy. Oncoimmunology (2017) 6(4):e1264563. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2016.1264563

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 297

  StephensonKBBarraNGDaviesEAshkarAALichtyBD. Expressing Human Interleukin-15 From Oncolytic Vesicular Stomatitis Virus Improves Survival in a Murine Metastatic Colon Adenocarcinoma Model Through the Enhancement of Anti-Tumor Immunity. Cancer Gene Ther (2012) 19(4):238–46. doi: 10.1038/cgt.2011.81

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 298

  Bourgeois-DaigneaultMCRoyDGFallsTTwumasi-BoatengKSt-GermainLEMarguerieMet al. Oncolytic Vesicular Stomatitis Virus Expressing Interferon-Gamma has Enhanced Therapeutic Activity. Mol Ther Oncolytics (2016) 3:16001. doi: 10.1038/mto.2016.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 299

  ZhangJTaiLHIlkowCSAlkayyalAAAnanthAAde SouzaCTet al. Maraba MG1 Virus Enhances Natural Killer Cell Function via Conventional Dendritic Cells to Reduce Postoperative Metastatic Disease. Mol Ther (2014) 22(7):1320–32. doi: 10.1038/mt.2014.60

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 300

  YanYLiSJiaTDuXXuYZhaoYet al. Combined Therapy With CTL Cells and Oncolytic Adenovirus Expressing IL-15-Induced Enhanced Antitumor Activity. Tumour Biol (2015) 36(6):4535–43. doi: 10.1007/s13277-015-3098-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 301

  PatelDMForemanPMNaborsLBRileyKOGillespieGYMarkertJM. Design of a Phase I Clinical Trial to Evaluate M032, a Genetically Engineered HSV-1 Expressing IL-12, in Patients With Recurrent/Progressive Glioblastoma Multiforme, Anaplastic Astrocytoma, or Gliosarcoma. Hum Gene Ther Clin Dev (2016) 27(2):69–78. doi: 10.1089/humc.2016.031

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 302

  HeQFXuYLiJHuangZMLiXHWangX. CD8+ T-Cell Exhaustion in Cancer: Mechanisms and New Area for Cancer Immunotherapy. Brief Funct Genomics (2019) 18(2):99–106. doi: 10.1093/bfgp/ely006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 303

  WoronieckaKChongsathidkietPRhodinKKemenyHDechantCFarberSHet al. T-Cell Exhaustion Signatures Vary With Tumor Type and Are Severe in Glioblastoma. Clin Cancer Res (2018) 24(17):4175–86. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-1846

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 304

  GrillJLamfersMLvan BeusechemVWDirvenCMPheraiDSKaterMet al. The Organotypic Multicellular Spheroid Is a Relevant Three-Dimensional Model to Study Adenovirus Replication and Penetration in Human Tumors In Vitro. Mol Ther (2002) 6(5):609–14. doi: 10.1006/mthe.2002.0713

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 305

  LukasRVWainwrightDAHorbinskiCMIwamotoFMSonabendAM. Immunotherapy Against Gliomas: Is the Breakthrough Near? Drugs (2019) 79(17):1839–48. doi: 10.1007/s40265-019-01203-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar