4.6 Review

In Situ Cancer Vaccination and Immunovirotherapy Using Oncolytic HSV

期刊

VIRUSES-BASEL
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/v13091740

关键词

oncolytic virus; herpes simplex virus; immunotherapy; cancer vaccine

类别

资金

  1. NIH [R01 CA160762, NS032677]
  2. Thomas A. Pappas chair in Neurosciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

oHSV, modified to target cancer cells while sparing normal cells, induces anti-tumor immune responses and has shown efficacy in both preclinical models and clinical trials. Recent advancements, including FDA approval for melanoma treatment and combination with other immunotherapeutic agents, have invigorated the field of oncolytic viruses.
Herpes simplex virus (HSV) can be genetically altered to acquire oncolytic properties so that oncolytic HSV (oHSV) preferentially replicates in and kills cancer cells, while sparing normal cells, and inducing anti-tumor immune responses. Over the last three decades, a better understanding of HSV genes and functions, and improved genetic-engineering techniques led to the development of oHSV as a novel immunovirotherapy. The concept of in situ cancer vaccination (ISCV) was first introduced when oHSV was found to induce a specific systemic anti-tumor immune response with an abscopal effect on non-injected tumors, in the process of directly killing tumor cells. Thus, the use of oHSV for tumor vaccination in situ is antigen-agnostic. The research and development of oHSVs have moved rapidly, with the field of oncolytic viruses invigorated by the FDA/EMA approval of oHSV talimogene laherparepvec in 2015 for the treatment of advanced melanoma. Immunovirotherapy can be enhanced by arming oHSV with immunomodulatory transgenes and/or using them in combination with other chemotherapeutic and immunotherapeutic agents. This review offers an overview of the development of oHSV as an agent for ISCV against solid tumors, describing the multitude of different oHSVs and their efficacy in immunocompetent mouse models and in clinical trials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据